Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

A hollow victory for the hollow crown? – politicalbetting.com

123457

Comments

  • Options
    MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,563
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    How many pounds for how much time, roughly?

    It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
    In the end it will net out to nothing or a tiny profit on the nominal interest. Once SVB UK has been bought the loans will be paid back from cash overnight. It's a no brainer and for the government it could be them making a point to markets to show that our regulations work, ring fencing and moderate capital requirements has meant no real business interruption and no loss to to the taxpayer.
    The question that needs answering first is - was it just maturity risk on T-bills that did for them?

    If so, the money is 100% there - just locked up in T-bills until maturity/price rising to par.
    Not T-Bills (which are short dated) but Treasuries

    The issue is that it would be fine if they could be held to maturity (assuming the US government doesn’t default). However the depositors are demanding their money now. So they have to sell at a loss to fund the deposit outflow.
    Yes, they are realising losses far in excess of their capital buffer. Trump allowed these smaller and mid sized banks to basically not bother with it meaning they're doing what RBS and HBOS did when they went bankrupt, running at 40-70:1 leverage. Apparently the US didn't learn the lessons of the UK financial crash.
    Didn't SVIB lobby to reduce the capital requirements for 'small' banks?
  • Options

    kinabalu said:

    I agree with everything Lineker said. But that is irrelevant.

    You either agree with his right to speak in a personal capacity on Twitter or in the public domain or you don't. He's not a BBC employee and even if he was, they've been doing politics publicly for years.

    Jimmy Saville
    Noel Edmunds
    Andrew Neil
    Richard Sharpe
    Tim Davey

    Noel Edmonds is a good example of not aging well.
    He looks very little different now to how he did in 1975....
    Noel Edmonds is somebody who was utterly screwed by a bank.

    Noel Edmonds has reached an agreement with Lloyds Banking Group worth a reported £5m after his former business was destroyed following fraud at one of its branches.

    The TV star had been in a long-running court battle with the bank and originally sought compensation of more than £60m.

    As well as the payout, the bank apologised for the distress caused to Edmonds - who previously said he had tried to kill himself after his business was ruined by the scam.

    Staff at the HBOS branch in Reading ran the £245m loans fraud between 2003 and 2007.

    It wiped out several small businesses and they used the profits on things such as luxury holidays and high-end prostitutes. Six staff were jailed in 2017.


    https://news.sky.com/story/noel-edmonds-agrees-deal-with-lloyds-over-bank-fraud-case-11771607
    That scam was a real horror.
    It ruined the lives of so many people.

    I knew of one guy who had planned to retire at 55, he's still working in his 70s thanks to this fraud, he lost his business, his house, he employed a lot of friends and family who also lost their houses.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,905

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    The BBC however was right to take the action it did as his words were a direct contravention of their guidelines.

    As we used to say here, link?

    A guy who was apparently employed to enforce those guidelines says they were not.
    "was" employed.
    I was employed as a paper boy

    That i am no longer employed as such does not mean I can't opine authoritatively on the job
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,719
    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    The BBC however was right to take the action it did as his words were a direct contravention of their guidelines.

    As we used to say here, link?

    A guy who was apparently employed to enforce those guidelines says they were not.
    In any case, how legally enforceable are guidelines? Surely the clue’s in the name, there to guide rather than order (very obviously so in the cases of Brillo, Sugar etc).
    Of course they're not legally enforceable. The BBC suspended him for contravening their own guidelines. The police didn't charge him for the tweet ffs.
  • Options

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,924

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    If it cuts the number of boats crossing the Channel it will have been worth it for Sunak

    You Tories are just playing classic dog-whistle politics. The reality is that asylum seekers are super low compared to most of Europe.


    HYUFD:" If it cuts the number of boats crossing the Channel it will have been worth it for Sunak"

    me:
    - no specific target for the cut
    - no time period (so, fort instance, HYUFD could claim it was Mr Sunak rather than, say, bad weather)
    - no consideration of it being *our* money
    - logically, HYUFD thinks spending £550m (as agreed so far) is worth it if it reduces the total by one boat
    - and, as always, always, whether it is good for the Tory Party, not the UK



    https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2023/02/scottish-independence-gender-recognition-de-facto-referendum-my-latest-polling-from-scotland/

    Where does the disappearance of Lilt feature on that list?
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,029
    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Foster said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?

    In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?

    The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
    Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
    Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
    I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
    Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).

    Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
    Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
    Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
    Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
    You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.

    If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
    If you're relying on an argument from authority, the least you have to do is quote him and cite the source.

    But I'd be willing to bet he didn't say anything as ridiculous as that anti-semitism in Germany didn't "really" begin until after World War I. Because - I repeat - Germany was notorious for anti-semitism in the late 19th century.

    It really wasn't. Sure there was prejudice, but no way was it 'notorious' for it. Certainly not compared to France or Russia which really were notorious for it.
    So quote the authority you're relying on. He said there was no anti-semitism in Germany before World War I. Really?
    A university very close to me has recently had to change its name because it was named after a Prussian engineer and civil servant. In the last 10 years letters have been found showing that his politics was antisemitic. This was in the mid 19th century and well before the 1st world war
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057
    edited March 2023
    I watched MOTD last night for the lolz and I never usually watch it live. So I was one of the extra 500,000.

  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,140
    Scott_xP said:

    That said there probably is an argument as to how much punditry is required on sports programming generally (and the fact every broadcaster does it doesn’t mean that it’a immune to change). Certainly you can question the need to have everyone sat around in a fancy studio (on location too for things like the Olympics or WC) when overlaid graphics and commentary should do the trick.

    I don't think that's true

    It seems to me some of the most popular Olympics coverage is the round up show when there is no live action and it's all clips with presenters and pundits
    Well that’s likely because it’s highlights and most people don’t have the time to watch the events themselves in real time.

    How much of that comes down to the fact that it is highlights of the days events and how much of it comes down to the fact that there’s some big names sat in a studio halfway around the world is open to debate, though.
  • Options

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057

    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    I could live without the inter match punditry but a good commentary makes the game.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,301
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    Clear lead for “Don’t know”….




    Or Forbes, despite the fact the vast majority of SNP MPs and MPs have endorsed Yousaf
    This could get really awkward:

    SNP Leadership Election Endorsements, state of play at 11pm on 11th of March. 3 candidates, 106 endorsements available.

    Candidate: Backers (MSPs/MPs)

    Yousaf: 50 (32/18)
    Forbes: 14 (11/3)
    Regan: 1 (0/1)
    None Yet: 37 (14/23)
    None: 4 (4/0)

    https://ballotbox.scot/scottish-parliament/snp-leadership-election-2023

    …Yousaf now has the backing of a majority of the possible MSPs; 32 of 61, which is 33 of 64 inclusive of the leadership candidates.


    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1634692615785332736?s=20

    Interesting that MPs are being slower with their endorsements than MSPs.
    MSPs and MPs have exactly the same number of votes as any other member, including me: one.
    If Useless wins it then the SNP are F**ked. This is the Murrells last stand and if they ensure as we know they will that Useless gets it then the gravy trainers will et what they deserve in future elections. MP's are first in the firing line hence being a bit more reluctant I suspect. The donkey MSP's have till 2026 , but you can bet there will be massive move to ensure the grifters get a lifeboat of list seats when they get ousted by voters.
    I think he will win though. John Swinney has endorsed him, following Stephen Flynn. I suspect the Swinney support will persuade SNP members who might, understandably, have been havering.
    "Wavering", please. Havering is something else entirely.

    Though not as bad as the current PB insistence that perfectly worthy male farmworkers in the Lowlands of Scotland, aka loons, are as batshit crazy as the Truss administration [delete and insert as wished].
    ?? Havering means (or can mean) to hum and haw, act indecisively. Fair comment, surely? Are you a haverer in this instance? Wouldn't blame you...
    No, to haver or haiver means to talkgossip, nonsense, etc. For example, the great James Hogg in 'Tales of a Shepherd':

    "Will you stand clattering and clattering, and haver-havering this hale blessed day, and never think of setting away to your work?"

    https://dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/haiver_v_n1

    Though quite appropriate for PB actually sometimes!

    For some reason waver and haver have become muddled by non-Scots.
    It’s had the second meaning (which outside of Scotland is the more common usage) of being indecisive for a long time.
    Just a regional difference.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,031
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Foster said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?

    In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?

    The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
    Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
    Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
    I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
    Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).

    Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
    Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
    Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
    Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
    You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.

    If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
    Isn’t it a case of both things were true?

    Antisemitism was a big thing in Germany - Houston Stewart Chamberlain waves hello - but in day to day life, there was an equally marked level of liberalism towards Jews, compared to several other countries.
    Well, yes, but since I said there was prejudice but it was milder, as in, less ruthlessly enforced, I don't think you can say 'both things were true.' It's not as though Germany was 'notorious for its antisemitism.' The much greater anti-religious prejudice was directed against the Catholic Church - which was state enforced through the Kulturkampf.
    Well, the antisemitic movement originated there and you had HSC being feted by the great and the good.

    What do you make of the Wilhelm–HSC letters?
    That they were both unpleasant people and as mad as a box of frogs. I'm not sure why that's controversial.

    But the Kaiser was an equal opportunities hater. He despised everyone.
    He was certainly personal friends with various Jews. And seemed to have disliked anti-Semitic violence as “disorder” - he liked his social order exactly as it was, thank you. Plus a paternalistic approach to “all my children”.

    At the same time there was his lifelong friendship was HSC and Jews were definitely treated as second class citizens in high society.

    So you have ordinary life being easier for Jews, with I think, a deep river of antisemitism… not beneath the surface. But more as as theoretical thing, a prejudice rather than rock throwing.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,905

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.

    We may be about to find out.

    I personally think the answer is lots.

    The success of podcasts (literally 2 or 3 people talking) suggests there is an audience for it, if not a market.

    I think humans like talking about stuff. The entire success of this obscure blog depends upon it.

    I think humans also like listening to other people talk about stuff.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,165

    Scott_xP said:

    Whilst it is possible to have any of a number of perfectly reasonable views on Lineker and his tweet, it is unquestionably the case that the BBC have handled this very badly.

    And who is going to pay the price for that?

    It looks like it should be Davie
    An instructive case with some similarities will be very familiar to you and other posters who remember The Morning Line.

    That grew from obscurity and over the years achieved a popularity that extended well beyond the niche racing audience it began with. Then, at the height of its popularity, it was taken over by a new production team and they wanted one of the chief presenters out; that was John McCririck, whom I'm sure you remember. His views were not compatible with the image the new producers wished to present. One or two others resigned in sympathy with him, and a few others were dismissed because they no longer fitted.

    McCririck sued the company and lost. I read the judgement, and agreed with it. They had every right to dismiss him. It was unwise though. The programme's popularity went into a steep decline from which it never recovered, and it eventually closed down.

    I can see something similar happening with MOTD.
    IIRC the key part of the judgment was “All the evidence is that Mr McCririck’s pantomime persona, as demonstrated on the celebrity television appearances, and his persona when appearing on Channel 4 Racing, together with his self-described bigoted and male chauvinist views were clearly unpalatable to a wider potential audience. The tribunal is satisfied that the respondent had the legitimate aim of attracting a wider audience to horseracing.”

    You don't really come back from a finding of fact like that.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,905

    How much of that comes down to the fact that it is highlights of the days events and how much of it comes down to the fact that there’s some big names sat in a studio halfway around the world is open to debate, though.

    And we're back to MOTD.

    Does it work without the pundits?

    Maybe time will tell
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,928
    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    The BBC however was right to take the action it did as his words were a direct contravention of their guidelines.

    As we used to say here, link?

    A guy who was apparently employed to enforce those guidelines says they were not.
    In any case, how legally enforceable are guidelines? Surely the clue’s in the name, there to guide rather than order (very obviously so in the cases of Brillo, Sugar etc).
    Of course they're not legally enforceable. The BBC suspended him for contravening their own guidelines. The police didn't charge him for the tweet ffs.
    You don’t think the law intrudes into employment conditions? You’ve led a sheltered life.
  • Options

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Did Neil do illegal things?

  • Options

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Foster said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?

    In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?

    The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
    Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
    Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
    I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
    Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).

    Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
    Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
    The term “antisemitism” was invented there, as self description by people who hated Jews.

    Interestingly, Nietzsche was aggressively opposed to the antisemites. Not because he was a fan of Jews, but because he regarded them (the antisemities) as stupid scum.
    Hmm..
    If you don't know about 19th-century German antisemitism, just Google it.
    I certainly do, but I would say that the point I'm making more there, is that Germany also had an emancipatory and intellectual tradition alongside its strongly nationalist one. Hence a lot of Jews were able to flourish there.
    That’s true but I guess it could be argued that emancipation (which I believe initially required Jews to take gentile names) lulled Jews in to a false sense of security and encouraged them to believe all those extremists could never hold sway over them. German Jews were probably the most assimilated in Europe yet this still ended up with WWI veterans and holders of the Knights Cross being rounded up and forced into cattle cars.
    I visited Gleis 17 for the first time on my last trip to Berlin, a sobering experience. Along the edge of the platforms are steel ribbons stamped with the dates, the number of Jews transported and their destination. Sometimes over a thousand of Berlin’s Jews a day were being taken east, and the fuckers were still doing it in March 1945 with the Red Army only a hundred miles away.

    Yes. It was very similar in Holland. A very educated and successful population who couldn't remotely conceive or accept of what was going on at first.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,577
    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Foster said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?

    In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?

    The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
    Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
    Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
    I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
    Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).

    Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
    Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
    Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
    Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
    You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.

    If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
    If you're relying on an argument from authority, the least you have to do is quote him and cite the source.

    But I'd be willing to bet he didn't say anything as ridiculous as that anti-semitism in Germany didn't "really" begin until after World War I. Because - I repeat - Germany was notorious for anti-semitism in the late 19th century.

    It really wasn't. Sure there was prejudice, but no way was it 'notorious' for it. Certainly not compared to France or Russia which really were notorious for it.
    So quote the authority you're relying on. He said there was no anti-semitism in Germany before World War I. Really?
    No. And nor did I.
    Well, in reply to "I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1."

    You said:
    Well, in Germany yes it did.

    It was an absolutely absurd thing to say, but evidently there's nothing so absurd that people won't "double down" on it, and that others won't pile in to defend it by abusing anyone who points out the absurdity.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,292
    Can we talk about the Turkish election? It seems the opposition figures have rallied around Kemal Kilicdaroglu as the candidate to take on Erdogan and reverse his constitutional reforms. The economy is in a mess, the opposition is united and Erdogan is under pressure due to the earthquake. He's behind in the polls. As Leon commented a while back there is a Kemalist revival going on in Turkey. It could be a real shot in the arm for political change in the middle east.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,301
    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    And a hit to government aspirations for us to be a ‘tech superpower’.
    It would poison investment in the U.K. significantly.
    Happily it looks as though this has dawned on the treasury, tech companies with SVB UK accounts look like they will have access to bridging finance with a charge taken on their SVB UK deposits. It's a fair compromise and will cost the government precisely zero.

    What's interesting is that this may actually show the upside of the current UK regulatory framework for banking, a foreign owned lender has gone bust, the UK branch is fully ring fenced and is basically ok with the clients facing much less uncertainty and losses than clients of the parent.
    That’s good.
    My biggest concern was that they’d haver.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 116,672
    edited March 2023

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Did Neil do illegal things?

    Nope, they are both the same, but only one is punished by the BBC.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,905
    DougSeal said:

    You don't really come back from a finding of fact like that.

    Except as the story goes, the 'fact' was in error.

    They thought firing him would increase audience share.

    Instead it tanked.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,165

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Did Neil do illegal things?

    TSE is not suggesting Neil be banned. You implied that Lineker should not have been "allowed" to do two jobs. You've managed to erect two straw men, which is impressive.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,463
    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    Thought it might be so
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141

    kinabalu said:

    I agree with everything Lineker said. But that is irrelevant.

    You either agree with his right to speak in a personal capacity on Twitter or in the public domain or you don't. He's not a BBC employee and even if he was, they've been doing politics publicly for years.

    Jimmy Saville
    Noel Edmunds
    Andrew Neil
    Richard Sharpe
    Tim Davey

    Noel Edmonds is a good example of not aging well.
    He looks very little different now to how he did in 1975....
    Not to a discerning eye. Plus he's fallen into some fruity views. I prefer to remember him in his 1970s pomp on Radio One.

    I still recall this joke he made back then, on school results day:

    "So, it's the big day, A levels are out, or is it O levels? Or for the kids doing Spanish, Olay levels."

    Not scripted. He just adlibbed that.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,928

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
  • Options

    Barnesian said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    I watched it for the first time last night, out of curiosity. I won't be watching it again. There must be many like me.
    I agree. It was a novelty.

    That said there probably is an argument as to how much punditry is required on sports programming generally (and the fact every broadcaster does it doesn’t mean that it’a immune to change). Certainly you can question the need to have everyone sat around in a fancy studio (on location too for things like the Olympics or WC) when overlaid graphics and commentary should do the trick.
    I watched it too, out of curiosty, but I certainly wouldn't watch a crude montage like that on a regular basis.

    Nevertheless there is an interesting debate to be had about the role of punditry and the amount that is useful or necessary. I can remember following Wales' progress into the world cup on Welsh TV with Welsh commentary and it was highly enjoyable, although I understood hardly a word that was spoken. And I'm sure many others like me have watched the cricket on TV with the sound turned down and the radio tuned to TMS.

    My feeling is that MOTD could do with paring the embellishments back a bit. It would certainly survive Lineker's departure, although wholescale resignations and departures would present difficulties. Talented presenters are rare. A good team of presenters is rarer.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,031
    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    Well you can certainly think that. I disagree. I think that Gary is intimately linked with the BBC. He is indeed literally a BBC poster boy.

    We could ask the person on the Clapham omnibus and I would wager that they would think so also.
    Probably a fair number think that the BBC *does* endorse Walkers.

    I still can’t understand the people who are upset at Lineker’s “salary”. Talking heads are always laid big money, and football is the epitome of big money sport.

    I spent more on a couple of shirts for my wife’s godsons than I spent on my annual membership of a rowing club. Which sums up professional football for me.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,924
    Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker BrrrrrrrrrreeeeeEEEEEXXXIIITTT!!! Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker

    Got better things to do with my Sunday, thanks.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057
    DougSeal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Whilst it is possible to have any of a number of perfectly reasonable views on Lineker and his tweet, it is unquestionably the case that the BBC have handled this very badly.

    And who is going to pay the price for that?

    It looks like it should be Davie
    An instructive case with some similarities will be very familiar to you and other posters who remember The Morning Line.

    That grew from obscurity and over the years achieved a popularity that extended well beyond the niche racing audience it began with. Then, at the height of its popularity, it was taken over by a new production team and they wanted one of the chief presenters out; that was John McCririck, whom I'm sure you remember. His views were not compatible with the image the new producers wished to present. One or two others resigned in sympathy with him, and a few others were dismissed because they no longer fitted.

    McCririck sued the company and lost. I read the judgement, and agreed with it. They had every right to dismiss him. It was unwise though. The programme's popularity went into a steep decline from which it never recovered, and it eventually closed down.

    I can see something similar happening with MOTD.
    IIRC the key part of the judgment was “All the evidence is that Mr McCririck’s pantomime persona, as demonstrated on the celebrity television appearances, and his persona when appearing on Channel 4 Racing, together with his self-described bigoted and male chauvinist views were clearly unpalatable to a wider potential audience. The tribunal is satisfied that the respondent had the legitimate aim of attracting a wider audience to horseracing.”

    You don't really come back from a finding of fact like that.
    "Wider potential audience"

    A lot has been sacrificed on the altar of wanting a demographic that you don't already have and thereby losing your existing demographic.

    But the broader point is that people like listening to others chat away about stuff. Look at Kermode and Mayo, look at peak Danny Baker and all those radio shows with several presenters. And people like personality, which McCririck had in spades.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,551

    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    More than you might think.

    One of the ingredients of the classic BBC Saturday night was some sort of chat show; Parkinson, Saturday Night at the Mill, that sort of thing. And the real appeal of them was familiar faces talking to each other.

    Whilst MotD is officially a football show, it has also taken on some of that role. Which is why so much if it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,577
    eristdoof said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Foster said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?

    In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?

    The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
    Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
    Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
    I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
    Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).

    Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
    Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
    Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
    Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
    You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.

    If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
    If you're relying on an argument from authority, the least you have to do is quote him and cite the source.

    But I'd be willing to bet he didn't say anything as ridiculous as that anti-semitism in Germany didn't "really" begin until after World War I. Because - I repeat - Germany was notorious for anti-semitism in the late 19th century.

    It really wasn't. Sure there was prejudice, but no way was it 'notorious' for it. Certainly not compared to France or Russia which really were notorious for it.
    So quote the authority you're relying on. He said there was no anti-semitism in Germany before World War I. Really?
    A university very close to me has recently had to change its name because it was named after a Prussian engineer and civil servant. In the last 10 years letters have been found showing that his politics was antisemitic. This was in the mid 19th century and well before the 1st world war
    The prevalence of anti-semitism in Germany in the late 19th century is not in the least controversial.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057

    Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker BrrrrrrrrrreeeeeEEEEEXXXIIITTT!!! Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker Lineker

    Got better things to do with my Sunday, thanks.

    Ta ra.
  • Options

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,463
    No Lineker not his pundits.. marvellous
    Scott_xP said:

    How much of that comes down to the fact that it is highlights of the days events and how much of it comes down to the fact that there’s some big names sat in a studio halfway around the world is open to debate, though.

    And we're back to MOTD.

    Does it work without the pundits?

    Maybe time will tell
    Lineker will be terrified that it does.....
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,719
    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    I could live without the inter match punditry but a good commentary makes the game.
    Especially on the radio :wink:

    I agree, the commentators on sports do add value.

    But how much do they get paid ?

    A pittance compared to the 'stars' back in the studio.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    The BBC however was right to take the action it did as his words were a direct contravention of their guidelines.

    As we used to say here, link?

    A guy who was apparently employed to enforce those guidelines says they were not.
    In any case, how legally enforceable are guidelines? Surely the clue’s in the name, there to guide rather than order (very obviously so in the cases of Brillo, Sugar etc).
    Of course they're not legally enforceable. The BBC suspended him for contravening their own guidelines. The police didn't charge him for the tweet ffs.
    You don’t think the law intrudes into employment conditions? You’ve led a sheltered life.
    So we await the lawsuit from Gary's lawyers.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,905
    @SkyNews

    Britain's biggest high street banks have been given a 24-hour deadline to rescue Silicon Valley Bank UK from collapse as the Bank of England prepares to place it into an insolvency process
  • Options

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141

    kinabalu said:

    I agree with everything Lineker said. But that is irrelevant.

    You either agree with his right to speak in a personal capacity on Twitter or in the public domain or you don't. He's not a BBC employee and even if he was, they've been doing politics publicly for years.

    Jimmy Saville
    Noel Edmunds
    Andrew Neil
    Richard Sharpe
    Tim Davey

    Noel Edmonds is a good example of not aging well.
    He looks very little different now to how he did in 1975....
    Noel Edmonds is somebody who was utterly screwed by a bank.

    Noel Edmonds has reached an agreement with Lloyds Banking Group worth a reported £5m after his former business was destroyed following fraud at one of its branches.

    The TV star had been in a long-running court battle with the bank and originally sought compensation of more than £60m.

    As well as the payout, the bank apologised for the distress caused to Edmonds - who previously said he had tried to kill himself after his business was ruined by the scam.

    Staff at the HBOS branch in Reading ran the £245m loans fraud between 2003 and 2007.

    It wiped out several small businesses and they used the profits on things such as luxury holidays and high-end prostitutes. Six staff were jailed in 2017.


    https://news.sky.com/story/noel-edmonds-agrees-deal-with-lloyds-over-bank-fraud-case-11771607
    Yep. Perhaps this explains why he kept banging out the Deal or No Deals until 2016.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,031
    Scott_xP said:

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.

    We may be about to find out.

    I personally think the answer is lots.

    The success of podcasts (literally 2 or 3 people talking) suggests there is an audience for it, if not a market.

    I think humans like talking about stuff. The entire success of this obscure blog depends upon it.

    I think humans also like listening to other people talk about stuff.
    Due to the gap between the viewer and the football game on TV, most watchers will want it curated in some way.

    This might change with the advent of immersive VR, where you could be present in the stands, virtually.

    I think that would be a generational change though. People like things the way they have known them since they were teenagers.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    Well you can certainly think that. I disagree. I think that Gary is intimately linked with the BBC. He is indeed literally a BBC poster boy.

    We could ask the person on the Clapham omnibus and I would wager that they would think so also.
    Probably a fair number think that the BBC *does* endorse Walkers.

    I still can’t understand the people who are upset at Lineker’s “salary”. Talking heads are always laid big money, and football is the epitome of big money sport.

    I spent more on a couple of shirts for my wife’s godsons than I spent on my annual membership of a rowing club. Which sums up professional football for me.
    It sums up people's appetite for professional football.
  • Options

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
    No AV.

    Two subtle Scottish puns though.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,905

    No Lineker not his pundits.. marvellous

    Scott_xP said:

    How much of that comes down to the fact that it is highlights of the days events and how much of it comes down to the fact that there’s some big names sat in a studio halfway around the world is open to debate, though.

    And we're back to MOTD.

    Does it work without the pundits?

    Maybe time will tell
    Lineker will be terrified that it does.....
    Apparently John Redwood likes the new format.

    Which is all the evidence you need that it's fucking terrible and appeals to nobody
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,165
    TOPPING said:

    DougSeal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Whilst it is possible to have any of a number of perfectly reasonable views on Lineker and his tweet, it is unquestionably the case that the BBC have handled this very badly.

    And who is going to pay the price for that?

    It looks like it should be Davie
    An instructive case with some similarities will be very familiar to you and other posters who remember The Morning Line.

    That grew from obscurity and over the years achieved a popularity that extended well beyond the niche racing audience it began with. Then, at the height of its popularity, it was taken over by a new production team and they wanted one of the chief presenters out; that was John McCririck, whom I'm sure you remember. His views were not compatible with the image the new producers wished to present. One or two others resigned in sympathy with him, and a few others were dismissed because they no longer fitted.

    McCririck sued the company and lost. I read the judgement, and agreed with it. They had every right to dismiss him. It was unwise though. The programme's popularity went into a steep decline from which it never recovered, and it eventually closed down.

    I can see something similar happening with MOTD.
    IIRC the key part of the judgment was “All the evidence is that Mr McCririck’s pantomime persona, as demonstrated on the celebrity television appearances, and his persona when appearing on Channel 4 Racing, together with his self-described bigoted and male chauvinist views were clearly unpalatable to a wider potential audience. The tribunal is satisfied that the respondent had the legitimate aim of attracting a wider audience to horseracing.”

    You don't really come back from a finding of fact like that.
    "Wider potential audience"

    A lot has been sacrificed on the altar of wanting a demographic that you don't already have and thereby losing your existing demographic.

    But the broader point is that people like listening to others chat away about stuff. Look at Kermode and Mayo, look at peak Danny Baker and all those radio shows with several presenters. And people like personality, which McCririck had in spades.
    I agree with your point but employment tribunals don't exist to correct bad business decisions. Seeking to attract such an audience was found to be a "legitimate aim". The ET doesn't give a toss whether or not the Respondent is successful in such an aim, merely whether or not it is a legitimate one and that the means applied (if indirectly discriminatory or, in age discrim, directly) are a proportionate means of achieving it.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,031
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    Well you can certainly think that. I disagree. I think that Gary is intimately linked with the BBC. He is indeed literally a BBC poster boy.

    We could ask the person on the Clapham omnibus and I would wager that they would think so also.
    Probably a fair number think that the BBC *does* endorse Walkers.

    I still can’t understand the people who are upset at Lineker’s “salary”. Talking heads are always laid big money, and football is the epitome of big money sport.

    I spent more on a couple of shirts for my wife’s godsons than I spent on my annual membership of a rowing club. Which sums up professional football for me.
    It sums up people's appetite for professional football.
    Which feeds into the price for everything associated with it. When you have clubs worth billions, players paid millions a month, T-shirts that cost 3 figures, boxes at matches costing 5 figures, a TV presenter costing a million a year just seems par for the course.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,031
    Scott_xP said:

    @SkyNews

    Britain's biggest high street banks have been given a 24-hour deadline to rescue Silicon Valley Bank UK from collapse as the Bank of England prepares to place it into an insolvency process

    Sounds like port and cigars at the Bank of England boardroom table - “Whose taking on what?”
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,928
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    The BBC however was right to take the action it did as his words were a direct contravention of their guidelines.

    As we used to say here, link?

    A guy who was apparently employed to enforce those guidelines says they were not.
    In any case, how legally enforceable are guidelines? Surely the clue’s in the name, there to guide rather than order (very obviously so in the cases of Brillo, Sugar etc).
    Of course they're not legally enforceable. The BBC suspended him for contravening their own guidelines. The police didn't charge him for the tweet ffs.
    You don’t think the law intrudes into employment conditions? You’ve led a sheltered life.
    So we await the lawsuit from Gary's lawyers.
    The BBC having made such a c**t of things, I’d imagine there’s the teeniest chance of it coming to that.
  • Options
    DougSeal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Did Neil do illegal things?

    TSE is not suggesting Neil be banned. You implied that Lineker should not have been "allowed" to do two jobs. You've managed to erect two straw men, which is impressive.
    I reckon that the BBC's main face of sport should not be hawking junk food to children

    If that's a straw man, then yay for straw men

    Neil is a tricky one

    His blatant political outlook ought to make him unsuitable for the job, but he's the best and fairest political interviewer I've ever seen on the Beeb

    And his other jobs aren't making kids obese
  • Options
    Scott_xP said:

    DougSeal said:

    You don't really come back from a finding of fact like that.

    Except as the story goes, the 'fact' was in error.

    They thought firing him would increase audience share.

    Instead it tanked.
    Yes, it was a grotesque mistake.

    It illustrated a failure to appreciate the value of a good team, and the danger of destroying its harmony. McCririck himself wasn't especially popular (in fact he was a bit marmite) but the team gelled, and when he and one or two others like John Francome departed, the balance and the magic departed too.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 11,062

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    Thought it might be so
    How many just viewed just to see what was going to happen. I know I did.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,719

    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    More than you might think.

    One of the ingredients of the classic BBC Saturday night was some sort of chat show; Parkinson, Saturday Night at the Mill, that sort of thing. And the real appeal of them was familiar faces talking to each other.

    Whilst MotD is officially a football show, it has also taken on some of that role. Which is why so much if it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around.
    Which illustrates how MotD is a relic from a bygone era.

    We don't have ten million middle class viewers watching Grandstand, Doctor Who, Generation Game, Two Ronnies, All Creatures, Parkinson and MotD on Saturdays anymore.

    But its a relic with the highest paid 'stars' at the BBC.

    "So Alan what did you think of the penalty incident ?"

    Its not Parky versus Emu is it.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,301
    .

    I keep hearing how the banks are much better capitalised than in 2008. That isn't saying much though is it? If we are going to have depositor guarantees surely there needs to be a requirement for much more capital. I'm quite happy to help firms who are temporarily without funds because their bank has gone bust but you need to be careful you aren't getting into corporate welfare. Obviously the bank bond holders and shareholders get nothing.

    They are in this country and other countries that have regulatory rules to cover this.

    The issue here isn’t, as far as we know, that depositors money has been lost. It’s that the US bank had a liquidity crisis - they could get the money out of the Government securities they held to give depositors there money *now*, without taking a major loss on the sale of the securities.

    So someone needs to hold the securities to maturity, while paying the depositors *their* money, in the present.
    Problem is that those bonds yield a lot less than current interest rates, so holding them to maturity is going to cost whoever does so, unless they get them at a discount.
    So someone’s got to lose money.

    For a well capitalised bank that just means a hit to profits. For SVB the gearing is much higher, with less capital cover, and the situation was made worse for current depositors by massive deposit withdrawals last werk.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,165

    Scott_xP said:

    DougSeal said:

    You don't really come back from a finding of fact like that.

    Except as the story goes, the 'fact' was in error.

    They thought firing him would increase audience share.

    Instead it tanked.
    Yes, it was a grotesque mistake.

    It illustrated a failure to appreciate the value of a good team, and the danger of destroying its harmony. McCririck himself wasn't especially popular (in fact he was a bit marmite) but the team gelled, and when he and one or two others like John Francome departed, the balance and the magic departed too.
    Like I say, the tribunal isn’t there to stop bad business decisions, it’s there to ensure that equalities law isn’t breached when reaching them.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,714
    I think Ian Darke summed up the Lineker situation best:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/IanDarke/status/1634554089081040897



    Ian Darke

    @IanDarke
    Sympathies and even admiration for those withdrawing services in solidarity with Gary Lineker today. But TV sport can be ruthless and , in my experience , no one should assume they are indispensable.
  • Options

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
    No AV.

    Two subtle Scottish puns though.
    Who could resist?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,013
    edited March 2023

    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    More than you might think.

    One of the ingredients of the classic BBC Saturday night was some sort of chat show; Parkinson, Saturday Night at the Mill, that sort of thing. And the real appeal of them was familiar faces talking to each other.

    Whilst MotD is officially a football show, it has also taken on some of that role. Which is why so much if it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around.
    So much of it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around because the Beeb can't AFFORD more than a few minutes of each match. THAT is why they need "pundits". (I prefer to call them padders.)
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,031
    Nigelb said:

    .

    I keep hearing how the banks are much better capitalised than in 2008. That isn't saying much though is it? If we are going to have depositor guarantees surely there needs to be a requirement for much more capital. I'm quite happy to help firms who are temporarily without funds because their bank has gone bust but you need to be careful you aren't getting into corporate welfare. Obviously the bank bond holders and shareholders get nothing.

    They are in this country and other countries that have regulatory rules to cover this.

    The issue here isn’t, as far as we know, that depositors money has been lost. It’s that the US bank had a liquidity crisis - they could get the money out of the Government securities they held to give depositors there money *now*, without taking a major loss on the sale of the securities.

    So someone needs to hold the securities to maturity, while paying the depositors *their* money, in the present.
    Problem is that those bonds yield a lot less than current interest rates, so holding them to maturity is going to cost whoever does so, unless they get them at a discount.
    So someone’s got to lose money.

    For a well capitalised bank that just means a hit to profits. For SVB the gearing is much higher, with less capital cover, and the situation was made worse for current depositors by massive deposit withdrawals last werk.
    Yup. The flip side is getting SVBs business book - lots of up and coming ventures. The sort of thing where 1% of the clients might become gazillions dollar companies one day.

    So it would probably be profitable in the medium term to take it over, providing you are big enough to fund the business in the short term.
  • Options

    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    More than you might think.

    One of the ingredients of the classic BBC Saturday night was some sort of chat show; Parkinson, Saturday Night at the Mill, that sort of thing. And the real appeal of them was familiar faces talking to each other.

    Whilst MotD is officially a football show, it has also taken on some of that role. Which is why so much if it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around.
    So mucch of it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around because the Beeb can't AFFORD more than a few minutes of each match. THAT is why they need "pundits". (I prefer to call them padders.)
    MOTD should be on ITV, sponsored by Walkers
  • Options
    DougSeal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DougSeal said:

    You don't really come back from a finding of fact like that.

    Except as the story goes, the 'fact' was in error.

    They thought firing him would increase audience share.

    Instead it tanked.
    Yes, it was a grotesque mistake.

    It illustrated a failure to appreciate the value of a good team, and the danger of destroying its harmony. McCririck himself wasn't especially popular (in fact he was a bit marmite) but the team gelled, and when he and one or two others like John Francome departed, the balance and the magic departed too.
    Like I say, the tribunal isn’t there to stop bad business decisions, it’s there to ensure that equalities law isn’t breached when reaching them.
    Absolutely.

    As I indicated, the judgement was impeccable. It wasn't any concern of the court that the new production team was hopeless.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,301
    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    The BBC however was right to take the action it did as his words were a direct contravention of their guidelines.

    As we used to say here, link?

    A guy who was apparently employed to enforce those guidelines says they were not.
    In any case, how legally enforceable are guidelines? Surely the clue’s in the name, there to guide rather than order (very obviously so in the cases of Brillo, Sugar etc).
    Of course they're not legally enforceable. The BBC suspended him for contravening their own guidelines. The police didn't charge him for the tweet ffs.
    Lineker’s company’s contract with the BBC is legally enforceable, which is the point.
    That probably works in his favour rather than that of the BBC.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,013
    edited March 2023

    Its not Parky versus Emu is it.

    Very good.

    It certainly isn't Parky with Billy Connelly in his pomp.

    "I needed somewhere to park my bike...."

  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141

    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    More than you might think.

    One of the ingredients of the classic BBC Saturday night was some sort of chat show; Parkinson, Saturday Night at the Mill, that sort of thing. And the real appeal of them was familiar faces talking to each other.

    Whilst MotD is officially a football show, it has also taken on some of that role. Which is why so much if it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around.
    Yes, it's more than a footy show and familiarity is key to the appeal. The theme tune, the host and pundits, the lead vs fringe commentator dynamic, and during the football season (most of the year let's face it) it's always but always on the BBC on a Saturday night. Tune in on a Friday, you don't see it. Tune into CH4, you don't see it. It's Saturday night, on the BBC.
  • Options

    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    More than you might think.

    One of the ingredients of the classic BBC Saturday night was some sort of chat show; Parkinson, Saturday Night at the Mill, that sort of thing. And the real appeal of them was familiar faces talking to each other.

    Whilst MotD is officially a football show, it has also taken on some of that role. Which is why so much if it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around.
    So mucch of it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around because the Beeb can't AFFORD more than a few minutes of each match. THAT is why they need "pundits". (I prefer to call them padders.)
    MOTD should be on ITV, sponsored by Walkers
    Do you get this worked up by all those England cricketers pimping for all these starch and greasy laden products?
  • Options

    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    More than you might think.

    One of the ingredients of the classic BBC Saturday night was some sort of chat show; Parkinson, Saturday Night at the Mill, that sort of thing. And the real appeal of them was familiar faces talking to each other.

    Whilst MotD is officially a football show, it has also taken on some of that role. Which is why so much if it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around.
    So mucch of it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around because the Beeb can't AFFORD more than a few minutes of each match. THAT is why they need "pundits". (I prefer to call them padders.)
    MOTD should be on ITV, sponsored by Walkers
    Do you get this worked up by all those England cricketers pimping for all these starch and greasy laden products?
    How many of them are paid £100k an hour by the public service broadcaster?
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,463
    kjh said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    Thought it might be so
    How many just viewed just to see what was going to happen. I know I did.
    Half a million it would seem...
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,719

    Its not Parky versus Emu is it.

    Very good.

    It certainly isn't Parky with Billy Connelly in his pomp.

    "I needed somewhere to park my bike...."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Eyv2N5X2I
  • Options

    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    More than you might think.

    One of the ingredients of the classic BBC Saturday night was some sort of chat show; Parkinson, Saturday Night at the Mill, that sort of thing. And the real appeal of them was familiar faces talking to each other.

    Whilst MotD is officially a football show, it has also taken on some of that role. Which is why so much if it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around.
    So mucch of it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around because the Beeb can't AFFORD more than a few minutes of each match. THAT is why they need "pundits". (I prefer to call them padders.)
    MOTD should be on ITV, sponsored by Walkers
    Do you get this worked up by all those England cricketers pimping for all these starch and greasy laden products?
    How many of them are paid £100k an hour by the public service broadcaster?
    So it's ok to pump starch and greasy laden products if you don't work for the state broadcaster?

    What a curious little hill you have chosen to die on.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,013
    edited March 2023

    No Lineker not his pundits.. marvellous

    Scott_xP said:

    How much of that comes down to the fact that it is highlights of the days events and how much of it comes down to the fact that there’s some big names sat in a studio halfway around the world is open to debate, though.

    And we're back to MOTD.

    Does it work without the pundits?

    Maybe time will tell
    Lineker will be terrified that it does.....
    Plus all the others put out of a job.

    Such is solidarity, brothers....
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,165
    Just to wade in on the "gross misconduct" thing, gross misconduct (a colloquialism really) is behaviour so bad a breach that it goes to the very root of the contract, conduct that is capable of destroying the relationship between the employer and employee, or consultant and client in this case.

    However, if it is aware of such behaviour, then an "employer" (i.e. the BBC) can "affirm" conduct that is capable of repudiating the contract between them if it doesn't act quickly enough or, by its actions, indicates that the relationship hasn't been destroyed.

    Whatever the contract says, when Tim Davie said this morning that "Success for me is getting Gary back on air", then in my view, he affirmed the contract with Lineker. He thus openly said the contract can be saved and the relationship was not destroyed. Unless there is some very anti-Lineker drafting in his contract the BBC have left it too late to dismiss for gross misconduct. To get him out fast there will have to be some form of payment.

    Normally the way to go is to suspend for the purposes of an investigation or similar. That didn't happen here.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,301
    ..
    kjh said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    Thought it might be so
    How many just viewed just to see what was going to happen. I know I did.
    The curiosity factor is likely to wear out quickly.
  • Options

    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    More than you might think.

    One of the ingredients of the classic BBC Saturday night was some sort of chat show; Parkinson, Saturday Night at the Mill, that sort of thing. And the real appeal of them was familiar faces talking to each other.

    Whilst MotD is officially a football show, it has also taken on some of that role. Which is why so much if it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around.
    So mucch of it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around because the Beeb can't AFFORD more than a few minutes of each match. THAT is why they need "pundits". (I prefer to call them padders.)
    MOTD should be on ITV, sponsored by Walkers
    Do you get this worked up by all those England cricketers pimping for all these starch and greasy laden products?
    How many of them are paid £100k an hour by the public service broadcaster?
    So it's ok to pump starch and greasy laden products if you don't work for the state broadcaster?

    What a curious little hill you have chosen to die on.
    Don't worry; my dislike of Mr Lineker is just a part-time hobby

    It certainly won't finish me off
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,905

    Scott_xP said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    The BBC however was right to take the action it did as his words were a direct contravention of their guidelines.

    As we used to say here, link?

    A guy who was apparently employed to enforce those guidelines says they were not.
    "was" employed.
    I was employed as a paper boy

    That i am no longer employed as such does not mean I can't opine authoritatively on the job
    It is quite a shock to learn that you once earned pocket money by repeatedly lobbing information in peoples general direction with little regard for its quality or desirability.
    Which shows how little you understand the job.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,301

    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    More than you might think.

    One of the ingredients of the classic BBC Saturday night was some sort of chat show; Parkinson, Saturday Night at the Mill, that sort of thing. And the real appeal of them was familiar faces talking to each other.

    Whilst MotD is officially a football show, it has also taken on some of that role. Which is why so much if it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around.
    So much of it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around because the Beeb can't AFFORD more than a few minutes of each match. THAT is why they need "pundits". (I prefer to call them padders.)
    So you’re saying Lineker is value for money ?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,557
    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Foster said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?

    In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?

    The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
    Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
    Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
    I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
    Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).

    Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
    Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
    Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
    Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
    You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.

    If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
    If you're relying on an argument from authority, the least you have to do is quote him and cite the source.

    But I'd be willing to bet he didn't say anything as ridiculous as that anti-semitism in Germany didn't "really" begin until after World War I. Because - I repeat - Germany was notorious for anti-semitism in the late 19th century.

    It really wasn't. Sure there was prejudice, but no way was it 'notorious' for it. Certainly not compared to France or Russia which really were notorious for it.
    So quote the authority you're relying on. He said there was no anti-semitism in Germany before World War I. Really?
    No. And nor did I. And nor has anyone else. What we said was it was milder in form than most other countries and I later added that your statement 'Germany was notorious for its antisemitism' is flat out wrong, which is also correct.

    I think you might benefit from rereading my comment before disappearing down a Hyufd style rabbit hole and threatening to nuke the Falklands.

    If you are interested however, and can read German, try Kneipengesprache im Kaissereich (Bar Talk in the German Empire).

    And now I have work to do. Have a good afternoon.
    For those interested in the history of European Jews in the 19th and first half of the 20th Century, I highly recommend this book:

    https://amzn.eu/d/ieFbUe9

    It deals with all aspects, from Shtetl pogroms to the anxieties amongst Jews that they were becoming so assimilated that they would soon no longer exist as a distinct people.

    Fair to say that most European countries were anti-semitic to a greater or lesser degree, but also that Jewish culture was also strong and vibrant in the same countries. History is complicated.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,556

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
    No AV.

    Two subtle Scottish puns though.
    Who could resist?
    *also slavers in anticipation*
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,751
    Sunday Times suggesting that full expensing is coming to the UK at a cost of £10bn per year in CT income. That sounds about right but the economic multiplier on that £10bn is going to be absolutely massive, the increase in income tax and NI receipts alone will cover the costs. It's such a better solution than reversing the rise to 25%.

    If it's true then it's the single most pro-growth policy the UK has had in decades. It will add 0.8-1% to UK GDP per year by finally unlocking business investment. Coupled with Rishi's political stability that comes with being a grown up we could see a pretty big turnaround for the economy over the next year or so.
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,029
    Chris said:

    eristdoof said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Foster said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?

    In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?

    The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
    Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
    Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
    I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
    Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).

    Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
    Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
    Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
    Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
    You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.

    If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
    If you're relying on an argument from authority, the least you have to do is quote him and cite the source.

    But I'd be willing to bet he didn't say anything as ridiculous as that anti-semitism in Germany didn't "really" begin until after World War I. Because - I repeat - Germany was notorious for anti-semitism in the late 19th century.

    It really wasn't. Sure there was prejudice, but no way was it 'notorious' for it. Certainly not compared to France or Russia which really were notorious for it.
    So quote the authority you're relying on. He said there was no anti-semitism in Germany before World War I. Really?
    A university very close to me has recently had to change its name because it was named after a Prussian engineer and civil servant. In the last 10 years letters have been found showing that his politics was antisemitic. This was in the mid 19th century and well before the 1st world war
    The prevalence of anti-semitism in Germany in the late 19th century is not in the least controversial.
    It seems to some on PB that anti-semitism first came to Germany after WW One
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,029
    Chris said:

    eristdoof said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Foster said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?

    In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?

    The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
    Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
    Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
    I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
    Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).

    Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
    Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
    Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
    Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
    You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.

    If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
    If you're relying on an argument from authority, the least you have to do is quote him and cite the source.

    But I'd be willing to bet he didn't say anything as ridiculous as that anti-semitism in Germany didn't "really" begin until after World War I. Because - I repeat - Germany was notorious for anti-semitism in the late 19th century.

    It really wasn't. Sure there was prejudice, but no way was it 'notorious' for it. Certainly not compared to France or Russia which really were notorious for it.
    So quote the authority you're relying on. He said there was no anti-semitism in Germany before World War I. Really?
    A university very close to me has recently had to change its name because it was named after a Prussian engineer and civil servant. In the last 10 years letters have been found showing that his politics was antisemitic. This was in the mid 19th century and well before the 1st world war
    The prevalence of anti-semitism in Germany in the late 19th century is not in the least controversial.
    It seems to some on PB that anti-semitism first came to Germany after WW One
  • Options
    I'm quite amused that my £100k per hour comments have elicited no replies

    I just made up the figure by reckoning he's on the screen for about half an hour a week, then rounding up to the nearest big number

    It's like the Linekerites have learnt a lesson from £350m per week on the side of a bus
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,928
    Ash not taking the high road.



  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,301
    DougSeal said:

    Just to wade in on the "gross misconduct" thing, gross misconduct (a colloquialism really) is behaviour so bad a breach that it goes to the very root of the contract, conduct that is capable of destroying the relationship between the employer and employee, or consultant and client in this case.

    However, if it is aware of such behaviour, then an "employer" (i.e. the BBC) can "affirm" conduct that is capable of repudiating the contract between them if it doesn't act quickly enough or, by its actions, indicates that the relationship hasn't been destroyed.

    Whatever the contract says, when Tim Davie said this morning that "Success for me is getting Gary back on air", then in my view, he affirmed the contract with Lineker. He thus openly said the contract can be saved and the relationship was not destroyed. Unless there is some very anti-Lineker drafting in his contract the BBC have left it too late to dismiss for gross misconduct. To get him out fast there will have to be some form of payment.

    Normally the way to go is to suspend for the purposes of an investigation or similar. That didn't happen here.

    The BBC, like the Tories, are tying themselves in knots over this.

    If they’d just said Lineker’s a twat for comparing people to Nazis, but we respect his right to say shit, outside of his BBC appearances, we’d all have forgotten about it by now.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,558
    MaxPB said:

    Sunday Times suggesting that full expensing is coming to the UK at a cost of £10bn per year in CT income. That sounds about right but the economic multiplier on that £10bn is going to be absolutely massive, the increase in income tax and NI receipts alone will cover the costs. It's such a better solution than reversing the rise to 25%.

    If it's true then it's the single most pro-growth policy the UK has had in decades. It will add 0.8-1% to UK GDP per year by finally unlocking business investment. Coupled with Rishi's political stability that comes with being a grown up we could see a pretty big turnaround for the economy over the next year or so.

    I have my doubts about that, but if the budget is good, I'll support it.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,013
    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
    No AV.

    Two subtle Scottish puns though.
    Who could resist?
    *also slavers in anticipation*
    You anticipating fresh slaves?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,301
    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
    No AV.

    Two subtle Scottish puns though.
    Who could resist?
    *also slavers in anticipation*
    Not modern slavers, I hope ?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,013
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    More than you might think.

    One of the ingredients of the classic BBC Saturday night was some sort of chat show; Parkinson, Saturday Night at the Mill, that sort of thing. And the real appeal of them was familiar faces talking to each other.

    Whilst MotD is officially a football show, it has also taken on some of that role. Which is why so much if it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around.
    So much of it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around because the Beeb can't AFFORD more than a few minutes of each match. THAT is why they need "pundits". (I prefer to call them padders.)
    So you’re saying Lineker is value for money ?
    He's cheaper than paying for 22 men kicking a ball around.

    Personally, I'd rather have MOtD half the length and a rerun of Morph-era Vision On to fill the void.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,463
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    The BBC however was right to take the action it did as his words were a direct contravention of their guidelines.

    As we used to say here, link?

    A guy who was apparently employed to enforce those guidelines says they were not.
    In any case, how legally enforceable are guidelines? Surely the clue’s in the name, there to guide rather than order (very obviously so in the cases of Brillo, Sugar etc).
    Of course they're not legally enforceable. The BBC suspended him for contravening their own guidelines. The police didn't charge him for the tweet ffs.
    Lineker’s company’s contract with the BBC is legally enforceable, which is the point.
    That probably works in his favour rather than that of the BBC.
    It may be that they have to pay till the contract end but if it gets the sumug
    Nigelb said:

    ..

    kjh said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    Thought it might be so
    How many just viewed just to see what was going to happen. I know I did.
    The curiosity factor is likely to wear out quickly.
    I watch Sky Free to air highlights so much easier and no bullshit punditry
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,556
    edited March 2023

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.

    Except he's not, unless you think the BBC also endorses Walkers crisps
    They have effectively, by allowing him to do both jobs at the same time
    Like they did with Andrew Neil and his many other jobs.

    Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?

    No, thought not.
    Did Neil flog grease, starch and salt to kids?
    So he was doing something legal, you want to ban legal things?
    Cor blimey, Gary’s got the righties supporting restricting unhealthy foods, some remarkable work in the goal area from the Leicester lad!
    I know.

    More importantly.

    I've done a Scotland thread, getting published this afternoon.
    Fantastic.

    Now I don't have to watch the Scotland/Ireland rugby game.

    Will AV get a mention? [Drools in anticipation.]
    No AV.

    Two subtle Scottish puns though.
    Who could resist?
    *also slavers in anticipation*
    You anticipating fresh slaves?
    No, first person present tense, intransitive verb.

    As here, from Sheena Blackhall The Bonsai Grower 49:

    Aabody sookit pandrops tae thole the dreid o the sermon. Bit there wis an airt tae the sookin: nae crinchin wis allooed - ye'd tae sook canny an slaw; stap the fite baa aneth yer tongue till it melled wi yer ain slivvers.

    Edit: reminded of it by watching Crufts.
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,441
    edited March 2023

    Scott_xP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now

    It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15

    It didn't

    No pundits

    World commentary
    It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
    Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
    They can't though. Last night was a novelty.

    I asked this yesterday.

    If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
    How many games can you remember seeing ?

    Dozens ? Hundreds ?

    How many comments from pundits do you remember ?

    How many enlightening insights have they ever given ?

    They can be replaced by people at 10% of the cost.

    Now there have been football programs which have based about talk and which were good - Baddiel and Skinner's fantasy football and James Richardson's Gazetta.

    But the first was hosted by two talented comedians and the second was from when Italian football was both glamorous and difficult to find out about.

    How many people would bother to watch a program which was only Lineker and mates talking.
    More than you might think.

    One of the ingredients of the classic BBC Saturday night was some sort of chat show; Parkinson, Saturday Night at the Mill, that sort of thing. And the real appeal of them was familiar faces talking to each other.

    Whilst MotD is officially a football show, it has also taken on some of that role. Which is why so much if it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around.
    So mucch of it isn't footage of 22 men kicking a ball around because the Beeb can't AFFORD more than a few minutes of each match. THAT is why they need "pundits". (I prefer to call them padders.)
    MOTD should be on ITV, sponsored by Walkers
    Do you get this worked up by all those England cricketers pimping for all these starch and greasy laden products?
    How many of them are paid £100k an hour by the public service broadcaster?
    So it's ok to pump starch and greasy laden products if you don't work for the state broadcaster?

    What a curious little hill you have chosen to die on.
    Also, I wasn't aware who the England cricket team's sponsors are

    I don't approve of them being sponsored by junk food manufacturers

    I'd much prefer them to be sponsored by a beer or wine maker
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,714

    SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker

    All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong
    Con voters: 51% / 36%
    Lab voters: 10% / 75%

    Whomp whomp

    Its a bit more complicated than that.....

    Most Britons...
    1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker;
    2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis;
    3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels;
    4. Like Stopping The Boats™


    https://twitter.com/BNHWalker/status/1634682526835908610?s=20
    I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
    With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.

    The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people.
    Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis
    The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.

    However we can now add some people who are right.

    All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.


    Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
    Which was an equally stupid comment. But that is not the point. People should be allowed to make stupid comments without fear of their personal comments being used to push them out of their jobs.
    You are utterly utterly utterly utterly wrong.

    It was not a stupid comment, it was perfect.

    The Tories and their friends are labelling absolutely everyone who comes across on a dingy a criminal, part of an invasion force - and insisting they should be treated as criminals.

    If you suggested to Braverman and Sunak it would be a good idea if the asylum seekers in hotels awaiting processing wore something, like an armband to identify what they are, they’d think it a good idea.

    The language of 1930s Germany was EXACTLY THE SAME labelling people who done no wrong, never been convicted of a crime as second class people and criminals. And in fact the language of 1930s Germany didn’t begin in Germany in the thirties, didn’t it. it’s as old as the human race.

    The problem with PB on this is there are not enough Christians here thinking in a Christian way.
    Bollocks from start to finish. And the final paragraph actually me me think for a minute you were taking the piss. Then I realised you actually believe this fatuous bollocks.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,557
    edited March 2023
    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    The BBC however was right to take the action it did as his words were a direct contravention of their guidelines.

    As we used to say here, link?

    A guy who was apparently employed to enforce those guidelines says they were not.
    In any case, how legally enforceable are guidelines? Surely the clue’s in the name, there to guide rather than order (very obviously so in the cases of Brillo, Sugar etc).
    Of course they're not legally enforceable. The BBC suspended him for contravening their own guidelines. The police didn't charge him for the tweet ffs.
    I think that the BBC have just insisted he step back.

    Indeed if this twitter thread is true, Linekers comments are specifically cited in the guidance as allowed:

    https://twitter.com/andybell2000/status/1634208918564904962?t=YRQaVbPznlI1DguB_vdsCA&s=19



  • Options

    NEW THREAD

  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,459
    Nigelb said:

    DougSeal said:

    Just to wade in on the "gross misconduct" thing, gross misconduct (a colloquialism really) is behaviour so bad a breach that it goes to the very root of the contract, conduct that is capable of destroying the relationship between the employer and employee, or consultant and client in this case.

    However, if it is aware of such behaviour, then an "employer" (i.e. the BBC) can "affirm" conduct that is capable of repudiating the contract between them if it doesn't act quickly enough or, by its actions, indicates that the relationship hasn't been destroyed.

    Whatever the contract says, when Tim Davie said this morning that "Success for me is getting Gary back on air", then in my view, he affirmed the contract with Lineker. He thus openly said the contract can be saved and the relationship was not destroyed. Unless there is some very anti-Lineker drafting in his contract the BBC have left it too late to dismiss for gross misconduct. To get him out fast there will have to be some form of payment.

    Normally the way to go is to suspend for the purposes of an investigation or similar. That didn't happen here.

    The BBC, like the Tories, are tying themselves in knots over this.

    If they’d just said Lineker’s a twat for comparing people to Nazis, but we respect his right to say shit, outside of his BBC appearances, we’d all have forgotten about it by now.
    The BBC was literally driven mad by the whole Brexit/Redwall thing. They got it into their heads that the people who watch Match of the Day and Strictly must also be uneducated plebs who vote for Boris and want to see migrants torpedoed. Lineker's utterances will have such people defecting en masse to GB News. Hence the panic.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,577
    edited March 2023
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Foster said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?

    In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?

    The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
    Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
    Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
    I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
    Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).

    Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
    Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
    Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
    Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
    You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.

    If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
    If you're relying on an argument from authority, the least you have to do is quote him and cite the source.

    But I'd be willing to bet he didn't say anything as ridiculous as that anti-semitism in Germany didn't "really" begin until after World War I. Because - I repeat - Germany was notorious for anti-semitism in the late 19th century.

    It really wasn't. Sure there was prejudice, but no way was it 'notorious' for it. Certainly not compared to France or Russia which really were notorious for it.
    So quote the authority you're relying on. He said there was no anti-semitism in Germany before World War I. Really?
    No. And nor did I. And nor has anyone else. What we said was it was milder in form than most other countries and I later added that your statement 'Germany was notorious for its antisemitism' is flat out wrong, which is also correct.

    I think you might benefit from rereading my comment before disappearing down a Hyufd style rabbit hole and threatening to nuke the Falklands.

    If you are interested however, and can read German, try Kneipengesprache im Kaissereich (Bar Talk in the German Empire).

    And now I have work to do. Have a good afternoon.
    For those interested in the history of European Jews in the 19th and first half of the 20th Century, I highly recommend this book:

    https://amzn.eu/d/ieFbUe9

    It deals with all aspects, from Shtetl pogroms to the anxieties amongst Jews that they were becoming so assimilated that they would soon no longer exist as a distinct people.

    Fair to say that most European countries were anti-semitic to a greater or lesser degree, but also that Jewish culture was also strong and vibrant in the same countries. History is complicated.
    As two people accused me of contradicting Richard Evans - but neither of them was able to quote anything by him in support - I was quite curious to know what he had written. I couldn't find any direct quotations from him about pre-WWI antisemitism (his main focus was on WWII) but I did find this in a review of his book "The Coming of the Third Reich" by Andrew Roberts:

    Evans accepts that one prerequisite for Hitler's success – deep-seated anti-Semitism among wide sections of German society – was present as early as the 1870s. He might well be shocked to recognise it, but his analysis of German anti-Semitism comes down far more on the side of Daniel Goldhagen's theory in Hitler's Willing Executioners, which argued that the Germans had been irredeemable anti-Semites for generations, than upon the opposite point of view which states that the Nazis were uniquely exterminationist.

    Although the organised working-class Left was not particularly anti-Semitic in Bismarckian and later Weimar Germany, the roots of anti-Semitism went deep into much of the rest of German society. Evans points to the foundation of the League of Antisemites in 1879, and the career of the thieving, blackmailing forger (and headmaster) Hermann Ahlwardt, who got elected to the Reichstag in the 1880s simply on a platform of spewing hatred against Germany's Jews – who only made up one per cent of the population.

    What Evans calls "the domestication of anti-Semitism" took place in the 1880s and early 1890s, with novelists such as Julius Langbehn writing about the Jews in terms of "poison", "plague" and "vermin". Evans is particularly interesting about the Führer's own anti-Semitism. "Hitler was the product of circumstances as much as anything else," he writes, and the milieu in which the young Hitler lived in Vienna, as well as the political tracts he read while scraping a living as a drawer of houses, drew him ineluctably towards his loathing of Jews.

    "Hitler could scarcely ignore the everyday anti-Semitism of the kind of newspapers that were available in the Men's Home, and the cheap anti-Semitic pamphlets he later described reading at this time." Yet it was not until Germany's defeat in 1918 that his anti-Semitism became murderous, believes Evans: "His hatred of Jews only became visceral, personal and extreme at the end of the First World War."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3606146/The-roots-of-Hitlers-murderous-anti-Semitism.html

    That doesn't not reassure me that either of them had much of a clue about what they were talking about, snarky personal comments aside.
This discussion has been closed.