Casemiro sent off. Can't have Southampton winning. Will put the bottom nine within 4 points!
Gary Lineker was never ever sent off!
Until Friday.
Too much is attached to his record though, Pete.
He wasn't an especially clean or honest player, but he is smart. I know how he got away with it. I played at a decent amateur level until I was 35 and only got booked once. Yet I was, by common consent, a dirty player. How did I get away with it?
Never argued with referees. Too smart.
Despite my non-footie fan status, I'd like to add something here. *Years* ago (perhaps decades), I heard a conversation between Vinnie Jones and Gary Lineker (probably on R5L). Jones was complaining about Lineker's 'clean' status, and that he'd get booked for things that Lineker had done. Lineker's response was that he had occasionally made mistakes, but as he was known as a 'clean' player, refs would let it slide. Whereas Jones, a notorious hard nut, would get booked.
I'm guessing pre-existing reputation also matters.
I *think* I'm remembering that correctly... The things I'd listen to whilst out walking.
Ah so maybe some refs conform with that silly right-wing cliche about the left - they assume good people can't do bad things.
That cliche is actually the basis of most mythology and a lot of culture. Consider the Iliad - being brave meant you were good.
Oh yes it has truth but people with left wing views aren't extra especially prone to it. Its attribution to the modern left was probably first dreamt up by some pundit in the drivelpipe and it was one of those that took off. There's little one can do once this happens.
They are fairly prone to it, which is why people on the left often act as apologists for brutal dictators. Remember the protestor who defended President Assad because "he's a doctor, for heaven's sake"?
Same on the right. Look at how Donald Trump could do no wrong for so many people even though he spent most of his time doing exactly that. It really isn't a special left wing characteristic.
Assad surely must be harshly judged - as WG says, he's a doctor (medical), and his wife grew up in Acton. If Trump had grown up in Acton he'd be a better man than he is.
An interesting what-if. My sense fwiw is Trump would still be bad news even with an Acton upbringing.
He'd never have gotten away with his hair in West London. Maybe in the East. (These matters are W vs E rather than the usual London N vs S)
I have been thinking about immigration, I wonder whether the pro immigration people aren't really contributing to keeping places shit holes....not totally sold on the idea but here is some thought
1) Some places are shitholes and need people to stand up and say no 2) When places are shitholes many prefer emigrating to living in a shit hole or standing up....understandably its a safer option 3) Most of those managing to emigrate will be the middle class 4) Most revolutions are driven by the middle class ultimately
So the theory, migration and allowing it weakens the middle class in shit hole countries that need reform thus making it less likely they will get changed
Not totally sold, a theory I am pondering so throwing it out to see what people think
To me this smacks of overstraining to supply anti-immigration sentiment with a cod-benign motivation.
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
If that's the advice they have forcing him off air was even dumber. At least if regular rules applied it'd be technically right just ineffective.
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
Isn't it easier to end a contract that doesn't involve employment?
It's time to stop being an England Rugby fan and start being an England Cricket fan.
Why? I support my sides through the good and the bad times. Supporting Swindon, Bath and Hampshire means a lot of lows, which makes the highs better. This England rugby team is a shadow of the side that thrashed NZ in 2019 in the WC semi. Yet France we’re astonishingly good yesterday, as good as that England performance 4 years ago. They would have beaten anyone, let alone a weak England side who have lost their way. Back in 2003 the England team were described in NZ as White Orcs on steroids. They are hobbits at the moment.
Kate Forbes, the nationalist MSP bidding to be Scotland’s youngest ever first minister, has signalled it could be years before a fresh independence vote is held because the case for it is not yet persuasive enough.
She told the Guardian in an interview that the Scottish National party had to put much greater emphasis on slowly persuading unionists to support independence, by first using Holyrood’s existing economic powers to prove Scotland can flourish.
Forbes, the Scottish government’s finance secretary, said it would be counterproductive to follow Nicola Sturgeon’s strategy of repeatedly setting target dates for a second independence referendum.
“It’s not possible to say and I won’t give you a timescale,” Forbes said when asked what her target date was.
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
Isn't it easier to end a contract that doesn't involve employment?
Yes. Depends on how it is written of course and many contracts have notice periods similar to employment (this is one of the things HMRC looks at regarding IR35. Genuine contractors usually have a zero notice period on both sides meaning that either the contractor or the contracting party can terminate the contract with no notice period.)
I would be surprised if there is much of a notice period in the contract, especially as Lineker is currently embroiled in the whole disguised employment legal case
Casemiro sent off. Can't have Southampton winning. Will put the bottom nine within 4 points!
Gary Lineker was never ever sent off!
Until Friday.
Too much is attached to his record though, Pete.
He wasn't an especially clean or honest player, but he is smart. I know how he got away with it. I played at a decent amateur level until I was 35 and only got booked once. Yet I was, by common consent, a dirty player. How did I get away with it?
Never argued with referees. Too smart.
Despite my non-footie fan status, I'd like to add something here. *Years* ago (perhaps decades), I heard a conversation between Vinnie Jones and Gary Lineker (probably on R5L). Jones was complaining about Lineker's 'clean' status, and that he'd get booked for things that Lineker had done. Lineker's response was that he had occasionally made mistakes, but as he was known as a 'clean' player, refs would let it slide. Whereas Jones, a notorious hard nut, would get booked.
I'm guessing pre-existing reputation also matters.
I *think* I'm remembering that correctly... The things I'd listen to whilst out walking.
Ah so maybe some refs conform with that silly right-wing cliche about the left - they assume good people can't do bad things.
That cliche is actually the basis of most mythology and a lot of culture. Consider the Iliad - being brave meant you were good.
Oh yes it has truth but people with left wing views aren't extra especially prone to it. Its attribution to the modern left was probably first dreamt up by some pundit in the drivelpipe and it was one of those that took off. There's little one can do once this happens.
They are fairly prone to it, which is why people on the left often act as apologists for brutal dictators. Remember the protestor who defended President Assad because "he's a doctor, for heaven's sake"?
Same on the right. Look at how Donald Trump could do no wrong for so many people even though he spent most of his time doing exactly that. It really isn't a special left wing characteristic.
Assad surely must be harshly judged - as WG says, he's a doctor (medical), and his wife grew up in Acton. If Trump had grown up in Acton he'd be a better man than he is.
An interesting what-if. My sense fwiw is Trump would still be bad news even with an Acton upbringing.
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
I've some sympathy for the small tech companies whose money is tied up in SVB, but none for these guys. If you've that much cash to deposit, you can afford people to manage it properly.
They’ll get 80-90% of it back, eventually. SVB’s losses on it’s loan book aren’t /that/ bad.
Honestly, it sounds like their risk management has been a lot better than other small-medium sized tech SV tech firms. Their cash on hand was at least split across multiple banks, so they can still make payroll.
It’s the idiots who left all their cash in SVB as their sole source of banking & are bleating about government bailouts online who I have no time for. It’s all “disrupt everything!” when they get to make money, but “where’s my bailout?” when they mess up their risk management. Not a good look.
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
Not really a fan of free speech then Squareroot?
Couldn't be clearer. He's a fan of freely telling Gary to fuck off!
Kate Forbes, the nationalist MSP bidding to be Scotland’s youngest ever first minister, has signalled it could be years before a fresh independence vote is held because the case for it is not yet persuasive enough.
She told the Guardian in an interview that the Scottish National party had to put much greater emphasis on slowly persuading unionists to support independence, by first using Holyrood’s existing economic powers to prove Scotland can flourish.
Forbes, the Scottish government’s finance secretary, said it would be counterproductive to follow Nicola Sturgeon’s strategy of repeatedly setting target dates for a second independence referendum.
“It’s not possible to say and I won’t give you a timescale,” Forbes said when asked what her target date was.
I have been thinking about immigration, I wonder whether the pro immigration people aren't really contributing to keeping places shit holes....not totally sold on the idea but here is some thought
1) Some places are shitholes and need people to stand up and say no 2) When places are shitholes many prefer emigrating to living in a shit hole or standing up....understandably its a safer option 3) Most of those managing to emigrate will be the middle class 4) Most revolutions are driven by the middle class ultimately
So the theory, migration and allowing it weakens the middle class in shit hole countries that need reform thus making it less likely they will get changed
Not totally sold, a theory I am pondering so throwing it out to see what people think
I would think that much emigration is just driven by people fleeing some kind of political insecurity, ie you have fallen out the powers that be. Then there is also just poverty and lack of opportunity to better yourself.
The point that I have made about this subject is that if you are 'pro immigration' you need to define a limit, and also a test for which cases are ok to let in. The problem is that globally, there is a near unlimited amount of people that would fall in to the description I have set out above, so there is always going to be a moral dilemma, it is naive to think otherwise.
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
In 2025. By which time, he may want to retire anyway, whatever the Chancellor may prefer
Whether you think Brexit is good or bad, it really has been shit for our car industry.
i am totally shocked by that.
At the time of the vote it seemed like Brexit would be bad news for the British car industry, but the PB brain trust assured us no such thing could possibly come to pass.
George Osborne has backed Gary Lineker in his row with the BBC and criticised former colleagues’ rhetoric around asylum policy.
The former chancellor also spoke up for Tim Davie, the BBC director-general, who has flown back from the US to try to end the dispute, but described the whole situation as a “bit of a mess”.
Davie was in Washington DC but travelled overnight to resolve a crisis that has severely disrupted the corporation’s sports coverage over the weekend. He is back in the UK with BBC insiders hopeful that a resolution can be found in which Lineker returns to TV screens next weekend.
Osborne, speaking to The Andrew Neil Show on Channel 4, said: “Personally I think some of the language used on immigration by some Conservatives – not all – is not acceptable. I have a lot of sympathy for Tim Davie, the director-general, who’s trying to maintain impartiality for the BBC in a partisan age. But it’s all ended up in a bit of a mess.”
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
Isn't it easier to end a contract that doesn't involve employment?
It rather depends on what is in the contract!
But it is certainly true that a contractors tend to have many fewer protections. With that said, during the Y2K scrum in the UK, I saw people who had contracts that guaranteed them pay through to the end of January 2000, and where the contractor would essentially be paid under all circumstances.
during the Y2K scrum in the UK, I saw people who had contracts that guaranteed them pay through to the end of January 2000, and where the contractor would essentially be paid under all circumstances.
Unless of course the World had indeed ended at midnight...
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
In 2025. By which time, he may want to retire anyway, whatever the Chancellor may prefer
He might be Labour MP for Uxbridge, or Richmond by then.
Kate Forbes, the nationalist MSP bidding to be Scotland’s youngest ever first minister, has signalled it could be years before a fresh independence vote is held because the case for it is not yet persuasive enough.
She told the Guardian in an interview that the Scottish National party had to put much greater emphasis on slowly persuading unionists to support independence, by first using Holyrood’s existing economic powers to prove Scotland can flourish.
Forbes, the Scottish government’s finance secretary, said it would be counterproductive to follow Nicola Sturgeon’s strategy of repeatedly setting target dates for a second independence referendum.
“It’s not possible to say and I won’t give you a timescale,” Forbes said when asked what her target date was.
“Youngest ever” isn’t that significant given there have only been 6…
Humza Yousaf considering shamelessly stealing Ash Regan’s policy of Holyrood snap election. Has he seen SNP internal polling? None of his opponents will…
BBC needs major reform under Labour to keep it away from the government
This reform will probably consist of shoving Tory stooges out of the way and replacing them with figures from charities or the arts who are overwhelmingly sympathetic to metropolitan left-liberal concerns. The management will just end up bent one way rather than the other.
@KevinASchofield 1m Former immigration minister Caroline Nokes becomes the first Tory MP (I think) to say they won’t vote for the Illegal Migration Bill.
Says it risks criminalizing pregnant women, children and families.
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
Do you think the BBC would want to piss off their new Labour overlords by doing that?
More likely we see the end of the Tory stooges first.
I've some sympathy for the small tech companies whose money is tied up in SVB, but none for these guys. If you've that much cash to deposit, you can afford people to manage it properly.
They’ll get 80-90% of it back, eventually. SVB’s losses on it’s loan book aren’t /that/ bad.
Honestly, it sounds like their risk management has been a lot better than other small-medium sized tech SV tech firms. Their cash on hand was at least split across multiple banks, so they can still make payroll.
It’s the idiots who left all their cash in SVB as their sole source of banking & are bleating about government bailouts online who I have no time for. It’s all “disrupt everything!” when they get to make money, but “where’s my bailout?” when they mess up their risk management. Not a good look.
I suspect they'll get 90-95% of it back, and it is entirely possible that it will be 100%. (Don't forget the loan book is only about $70bn, and most of that is deposited in SVB bank accounts.)
There are plenty of bits of SVB that are profitable. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a large US bank (perhaps Goldman) pick it up while wiping out all the shareholders and junior creditors.
BBC needs major reform under Labour to keep it away from the government
This reform will probably consist of shoving Tory stooges out of the way and replacing them with figures from charities or the arts who are overwhelmingly sympathetic to metropolitan left-liberal concerns. The management will just end up bent one way rather than the other.
Well, the Tories would only have themselves to blame if that happens.
Whether you think Brexit is good or bad, it really has been shit for our car industry.
i am totally shocked by that.
At the time of the vote it seemed like Brexit would be bad news for the British car industry, but the PB brain trust assured us no such thing could possibly come to pass.
How could they get this one so wrong?
In fairness, that Leaver economist chap at Cardiff did say that Brexit would indeed destroy the British car industry, but we'd all be too busy enjoying the enormous benefits to care.
BBC needs major reform under Labour to keep it away from the government
This reform will probably consist of shoving Tory stooges out of the way and replacing them with figures from charities or the arts who are overwhelmingly sympathetic to metropolitan left-liberal concerns. The management will just end up bent one way rather than the other.
Well, the Tories would only have themselves to blame if that happens.
Sauce for the goose and all.
There's a genuine problem for the Conservatives here. Hardly any working-age people support them, hardly any graduates support them.
Where can Conservay-minded quangocrats come from? (Hence people like Richard Sharp, or Toby Young.)
@KevinASchofield 1m Former immigration minister Caroline Nokes becomes the first Tory MP (I think) to say they won’t vote for the Illegal Migration Bill.
Says it risks criminalizing pregnant women, children and families.
She'll be deselected. Too sane for this version of the Tories.
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
Why would you want to do that? You might not like him, but those in the know consider him to be the best at his job and value for money. Unless it is you are against free speech or hypocritically are happy for othe BBC presenters to comment on twitter, but not Lineker. Are you proposing firing Andrew Neil for instance?
BBC needs major reform under Labour to keep it away from the government
This reform will probably consist of shoving Tory stooges out of the way and replacing them with figures from charities or the arts who are overwhelmingly sympathetic to metropolitan left-liberal concerns. The management will just end up bent one way rather than the other.
Have the Tories largely shredded their own "War of Woke" by the Wack way they've engineered (or so it appears) perhaps the most famous example of Cancel Culture, since proto-wokeists beheaded Charles I of blessed memory?
Clearly not among true-blue believers, though seems they've dented even their morale & confidence somewhat. Anti-woke still a rallying cry for rallying the base, esp. parts flaking off toward Reform.
However, with swing-voters, whose votes are up for grabs between Conservatives and a LESS right-wing option, the story, reckon it's a different story.
About time for someone with the PM's and CUP's interest(s) at heart, to start giving direction to stop digging, and start re-filling the hole the Tories have dug for themselves.
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
Isn't it easier to end a contract that doesn't involve employment?
Not really - try cancelling your mobile phone contract early..
BBC needs major reform under Labour to keep it away from the government
This reform will probably consist of shoving Tory stooges out of the way and replacing them with figures from charities or the arts who are overwhelmingly sympathetic to metropolitan left-liberal concerns. The management will just end up bent one way rather than the other.
That would be slightly better though wouldn't it.
I don't think it would be any better. Being bent in either direction is equally deleterious to the viability of the institution.
Avoiding becoming the puppet, perceived or actual, of political concerns is actually achievable. These spats don't keep afflicting ITV.
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
Isn't it easier to end a contract that doesn't involve employment?
Yes. Depends on how it is written of course and many contracts have notice periods similar to employment (this is one of the things HMRC looks at regarding IR35. Genuine contractors usually have a zero notice period on both sides meaning that either the contractor or the contracting party can terminate the contract with no notice period.)
I would be surprised if there is much of a notice period in the contract, especially as Lineker is currently embroiled in the whole disguised employment legal case
which rather surprised HMRC because IR35 requires a limited company to be involved. From what I gather the court case is going to be a joy to read when the judgement is released
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™
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.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
In 2025. By which time, he may want to retire anyway, whatever the Chancellor may prefer
He might be Labour MP for Uxbridge, or Richmond by then.
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
Not really a fan of free speech then Squareroot?
Not under current BBC guidlines. He can work for the BBC and abide by its impartiality rules or he can leave. Up to him. He knew the rules when he took the job.
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
Isn't it easier to end a contract that doesn't involve employment?
Not really - try cancelling your mobile phone contract early..
Or complaining when your contact is ending and tyey donh warn you and they increase your bill by 30pc
BBC needs major reform under Labour to keep it away from the government
This reform will probably consist of shoving Tory stooges out of the way and replacing them with figures from charities or the arts who are overwhelmingly sympathetic to metropolitan left-liberal concerns. The management will just end up bent one way rather than the other.
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
Not really a fan of free speech then Squareroot?
Not under current BBC guidlines. He can work for the BBC and abide by its impartiality rules or he can leave. Up to him. He knew the rules when he took the job.
Yes, but the rules do specifically permit him to comment on Social Media about politics etc:
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
Why would you want to do that? You might not like him, but those in the know consider him to be the best at his job and value for money. Unless it is you are against free speech or hypocritically are happy for othe BBC presenters to comment on twitter, but not Lineker. Are you proposing firing Andrew Neil for instance?
BBC needs major reform under Labour to keep it away from the government
This reform will probably consist of shoving Tory stooges out of the way and replacing them with figures from charities or the arts who are overwhelmingly sympathetic to metropolitan left-liberal concerns. The management will just end up bent one way rather than the other.
That would be slightly better though wouldn't it.
I don't think it would be any better. Being bent in either direction is equally deleterious to the viability of the institution.
Avoiding becoming the puppet, perceived or actual, of political concerns is actually achievable. These spats don't keep afflicting ITV.
What I mean is having a left liberal cultural outlook is better than being terrified of offending an authoritarian government (Labour or Conservative). And there's no chance of any other cultural outlook at the BBC without a massive drop in quality - since creatives tend to dress that way.
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
Not really a fan of free speech then Squareroot?
Gary L really seems to have upset our resident Colonel Blimp
Have the Tories largely shredded their own "War of Woke" by the Wack way they've engineered (or so it appears) perhaps the most famous example of Cancel Culture, since proto-wokeists beheaded Charles I of blessed memory?
Clearly not among true-blue believers, though seems they've dented even their morale & confidence somewhat. Anti-woke still a rallying cry for rallying the base, esp. parts flaking off toward Reform.
However, with swing-voters, whose votes are up for grabs between Conservatives and a LESS right-wing option, the story, reckon it's a different story.
About time for someone with the PM's and CUP's interest(s) at heart, to start giving direction to stop digging, and start re-filling the hole the Tories have dug for themselves.
Maybe George Osborne's statement is part of that?
I recognise you won't have any sympathies politically with this, but as I have said, there are aspects of the kerfuffle that feel to me like a staged media event to reverse the current migration bill. 'Take the proles' football away and they will soon turn away from the migrant bill'.
Every piece of legislative progress than diverges us from the EU, puts us on a secure footing as an independent country in control of our borders, or can lead to economic growth in a post-EU context, is being dropped, quietly or noisily, by the Sunak Government.
Osborne's commentary within that context reminds me of that slithery man in the Lord of the Rings who was advising the King of the Horse Riders.
Have the Tories largely shredded their own "War of Woke" by the Wack way they've engineered (or so it appears) perhaps the most famous example of Cancel Culture, since proto-wokeists beheaded Charles I of blessed memory?
Clearly not among true-blue believers, though seems they've dented even their morale & confidence somewhat. Anti-woke still a rallying cry for rallying the base, esp. parts flaking off toward Reform.
However, with swing-voters, whose votes are up for grabs between Conservatives and a LESS right-wing option, the story, reckon it's a different story.
About time for someone with the PM's and CUP's interest(s) at heart, to start giving direction to stop digging, and start re-filling the hole the Tories have dug for themselves.
Maybe George Osborne's statement is part of that?
I recognise you won't have any sympathies politically with this, but as I have said, there are aspects of the kerfuffle that feel to me like a staged media event to reverse the current migration bill. 'Take the proles' football away and they will soon turn away from the migrant bill'.
Every piece of legislative progress than diverges us from the EU, puts us on a secure footing as an independent country in control of our borders, or can lead to economic growth in a post-EU context, is being dropped, quietly or noisily, by the Sunak Government.
Osborne's commentary within that context reminds me of that slithery man in the Lord of the Rings who was advising the King of the Horse Riders.
Isn't that, er, a bit like reusing the foil from the Christmas turkey?
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™
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.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
The highest paid BBC employee can say/tweet whatever he likes?
I hope that, whichever party gets to appoint the next chair and DG at the BBC, they realise it might be best to appoint somebody non-political, and with experience of running a broadcasting organisation.
My sister-in-law currently runs S4C, so she might be available...
I have been thinking about immigration, I wonder whether the pro immigration people aren't really contributing to keeping places shit holes....not totally sold on the idea but here is some thought
1) Some places are shitholes and need people to stand up and say no 2) When places are shitholes many prefer emigrating to living in a shit hole or standing up....understandably its a safer option 3) Most of those managing to emigrate will be the middle class 4) Most revolutions are driven by the middle class ultimately
So the theory, migration and allowing it weakens the middle class in shit hole countries that need reform thus making it less likely they will get changed
Not totally sold, a theory I am pondering so throwing it out to see what people think
I would think that much emigration is just driven by people fleeing some kind of political insecurity, ie you have fallen out the powers that be. Then there is also just poverty and lack of opportunity to better yourself.
The point that I have made about this subject is that if you are 'pro immigration' you need to define a limit, and also a test for which cases are ok to let in. The problem is that globally, there is a near unlimited amount of people that would fall in to the description I have set out above, so there is always going to be a moral dilemma, it is naive to think otherwise.
Yes, in some of those "shithole" countries if you stand up and say so you'll be killed or locked up. Hence why you might prefer to leave if you can.
Have the Tories largely shredded their own "War of Woke" by the Wack way they've engineered (or so it appears) perhaps the most famous example of Cancel Culture, since proto-wokeists beheaded Charles I of blessed memory?
Clearly not among true-blue believers, though seems they've dented even their morale & confidence somewhat. Anti-woke still a rallying cry for rallying the base, esp. parts flaking off toward Reform.
However, with swing-voters, whose votes are up for grabs between Conservatives and a LESS right-wing option, the story, reckon it's a different story.
About time for someone with the PM's and CUP's interest(s) at heart, to start giving direction to stop digging, and start re-filling the hole the Tories have dug for themselves.
Maybe George Osborne's statement is part of that?
I recognise you won't have any sympathies politically with this, but as I have said, there are aspects of the kerfuffle that feel to me like a staged media event to reverse the current migration bill. 'Take the proles' football away and they will soon turn away from the migrant bill'.
Every piece of legislative progress than diverges us from the EU, puts us on a secure footing as an independent country in control of our borders, or can lead to economic growth in a post-EU context, is being dropped, quietly or noisily, by the Sunak Government.
Osborne's commentary within that context reminds me of that slithery man in the Lord of the Rings who was advising the King of the Horse Riders.
Yes, of course, the political classes are some giant conspiracy.
Of course, it does rather raise the question of why the Remain camp in the referendum was quite so extraordinarily incompetent. But, don't worry, I'm sure you can think of a couple of good (albeit absurd) explanations.
Quick question for you: who exactly is in on this plan? Presumably, the government would need to be, because otherwise they might have very sensibly ignored his ridiculous comments.
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™
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.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
The highest paid BBC employee can say/tweet whatever he likes?
That's a strange rule for a state broadcaster
What if he did want to foment rebellion?
He isn't free to say what he likes. He's acting within his contract.
I hope that, whichever party gets to appoint the next chair and DG at the BBC, they realise it might be best to appoint somebody non-political, and with experience of running a broadcasting organisation.
My sister-in-law currently runs S4C, so she might be available...
I am prepared to serve as Chairman or Director-General of the BBC.
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™
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.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
The highest paid BBC employee can say/tweet whatever he likes?
That's a strange rule for a state broadcaster
What if he did want to foment rebellion?
Rebellion - i.e. armed uprising - would fail the criminality test, surely.
Now, what if he were to come out and say "black people are subhuman". Well, I think that would fail the ability to do his job impartially. Plus, I suspect, millions of people would stop watching MOTD in protest.
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™
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.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
The highest paid BBC employee can say/tweet whatever he likes?
That's a strange rule for a state broadcaster
What if he did want to foment rebellion?
He isn't free to say what he likes. He's acting within his contract.
*always check the contract and the wording*
So he doesn't have freedom of speech (except on football, where he says fuck all), whereas the post I was responding to suggested he does/should?
I hope that, whichever party gets to appoint the next chair and DG at the BBC, they realise it might be best to appoint somebody non-political, and with experience of running a broadcasting organisation.
My sister-in-law currently runs S4C, so she might be available...
I am prepared to serve as Chairman or Director-General of the BBC.
I have been thinking about immigration, I wonder whether the pro immigration people aren't really contributing to keeping places shit holes....not totally sold on the idea but here is some thought
1) Some places are shitholes and need people to stand up and say no 2) When places are shitholes many prefer emigrating to living in a shit hole or standing up....understandably its a safer option 3) Most of those managing to emigrate will be the middle class 4) Most revolutions are driven by the middle class ultimately
So the theory, migration and allowing it weakens the middle class in shit hole countries that need reform thus making it less likely they will get changed
Not totally sold, a theory I am pondering so throwing it out to see what people think
I would think that much emigration is just driven by people fleeing some kind of political insecurity, ie you have fallen out the powers that be. Then there is also just poverty and lack of opportunity to better yourself.
The point that I have made about this subject is that if you are 'pro immigration' you need to define a limit, and also a test for which cases are ok to let in. The problem is that globally, there is a near unlimited amount of people that would fall in to the description I have set out above, so there is always going to be a moral dilemma, it is naive to think otherwise.
Yes, in some of those "shithole" countries if you stand up and say so you'll be killed or locked up. Hence why you might prefer to leave if you can.
You could make a fair case for asylum for the entire Chinese & Russia populations.
I think I may need to investigate another extension on my house.
BBC needs major reform under Labour to keep it away from the government
You mean privatisation?
Certainly end the licence fee = any BBC employees can say what they like.
They couldn't. You have hate speech laws, the concept of bringing your employer into disrepute, or maybe you just say something that in one way or another makes you untenable in your role.
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™
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.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
The highest paid BBC employee can say/tweet whatever he likes?
That's a strange rule for a state broadcaster
What if he did want to foment rebellion?
He isn't free to say what he likes. He's acting within his contract.
*always check the contract and the wording*
So he doesn't have freedom of speech (except on football, where he says fuck all), whereas the post I was responding to suggested he does/should?
He doesn't have freedom of speech in the areas dictated by his contract. aka football. Elsewhere, not a problem.
BBC needs major reform under Labour to keep it away from the government
You mean privatisation?
Certainly end the licence fee = any BBC employees can say what they like.
They couldn't. You have hate speech laws, the concept of bringing your employer into disrepute, or maybe you just say something that in one way or another makes you untenable in your role.
Well obviously, but maybe I didn’t add all the clauses and exceptions because that obvious?
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™
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.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
The highest paid BBC employee can say/tweet whatever he likes?
That's a strange rule for a state broadcaster
What if he did want to foment rebellion?
Rebellion - i.e. armed uprising - would fail the criminality test, surely.
Now, what if he were to come out and say "black people are subhuman". Well, I think that would fail the ability to do his job impartially. Plus, I suspect, millions of people would stop watching MOTD in protest.
People with legal freedom of speech can be legally obliged to shut the fuck up because of their employment contracts
Lineker should be one of those
Until he goes commercial
He needs to be a real capitalist before he can act like his underlying communist
Have the Tories largely shredded their own "War of Woke" by the Wack way they've engineered (or so it appears) perhaps the most famous example of Cancel Culture, since proto-wokeists beheaded Charles I of blessed memory?
Clearly not among true-blue believers, though seems they've dented even their morale & confidence somewhat. Anti-woke still a rallying cry for rallying the base, esp. parts flaking off toward Reform.
However, with swing-voters, whose votes are up for grabs between Conservatives and a LESS right-wing option, the story, reckon it's a different story.
About time for someone with the PM's and CUP's interest(s) at heart, to start giving direction to stop digging, and start re-filling the hole the Tories have dug for themselves.
Maybe George Osborne's statement is part of that?
I recognise you won't have any sympathies politically with this, but as I have said, there are aspects of the kerfuffle that feel to me like a staged media event to reverse the current migration bill. 'Take the proles' football away and they will soon turn away from the migrant bill'.
Every piece of legislative progress than diverges us from the EU, puts us on a secure footing as an independent country in control of our borders, or can lead to economic growth in a post-EU context, is being dropped, quietly or noisily, by the Sunak Government.
Osborne's commentary within that context reminds me of that slithery man in the Lord of the Rings who was advising the King of the Horse Riders.
Yes, of course, the political classes are some giant conspiracy.
Of course, it does rather raise the question of why the Remain camp in the referendum was quite so extraordinarily incompetent. But, don't worry, I'm sure you can think of a couple of good (albeit absurd) explanations.
Quick question for you: who exactly is in on this plan? Presumably, the government would need to be, because otherwise they might have very sensibly ignored his ridiculous comments.
I call this the Gamelin Hypothesis
1) Maurice Gustave Gamelin was actually Graf von Schwabing in disguise.
Or
2) Maurice Gustave Gamelin and the rest of the French general staff were staggeringly incompetent.
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™
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.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
The highest paid BBC employee can say/tweet whatever he likes?
That's a strange rule for a state broadcaster
What if he did want to foment rebellion?
Rebellion - i.e. armed uprising - would fail the criminality test, surely.
Now, what if he were to come out and say "black people are subhuman". Well, I think that would fail the ability to do his job impartially. Plus, I suspect, millions of people would stop watching MOTD in protest.
People with legal freedom of speech can be legally obliged to shut the fuck up because of their employment contracts
Lineker should be one of those
Until he goes commercial
He needs to be a real capitalist before he can act like his underlying communist
Did Gary Lineker once shit in your living room or something?
You sound utterly deranged when you talk about him.
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™
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.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
The highest paid BBC employee can say/tweet whatever he likes?
That's a strange rule for a state broadcaster
What if he did want to foment rebellion?
He isn't free to say what he likes. He's acting within his contract.
*always check the contract and the wording*
So he doesn't have freedom of speech (except on football, where he says fuck all), whereas the post I was responding to suggested he does/should?
He doesn't have freedom of speech in the areas dictated by his contract. aka football. Elsewhere, not a problem.
No limit to what the idiot can say outside of football?
I hope that, whichever party gets to appoint the next chair and DG at the BBC, they realise it might be best to appoint somebody non-political, and with experience of running a broadcasting organisation.
My sister-in-law currently runs S4C, so she might be available...
I am prepared to serve as Chairman or Director-General of the BBC.
You as Chairman, me as DG?
Winner of the first punning contest gets to interview Boris Johnson.
Have the Tories largely shredded their own "War of Woke" by the Wack way they've engineered (or so it appears) perhaps the most famous example of Cancel Culture, since proto-wokeists beheaded Charles I of blessed memory?
Clearly not among true-blue believers, though seems they've dented even their morale & confidence somewhat. Anti-woke still a rallying cry for rallying the base, esp. parts flaking off toward Reform.
However, with swing-voters, whose votes are up for grabs between Conservatives and a LESS right-wing option, the story, reckon it's a different story.
About time for someone with the PM's and CUP's interest(s) at heart, to start giving direction to stop digging, and start re-filling the hole the Tories have dug for themselves.
Maybe George Osborne's statement is part of that?
I recognise you won't have any sympathies politically with this, but as I have said, there are aspects of the kerfuffle that feel to me like a staged media event to reverse the current migration bill. 'Take the proles' football away and they will soon turn away from the migrant bill'.
Every piece of legislative progress than diverges us from the EU, puts us on a secure footing as an independent country in control of our borders, or can lead to economic growth in a post-EU context, is being dropped, quietly or noisily, by the Sunak Government.
Osborne's commentary within that context reminds me of that slithery man in the Lord of the Rings who was advising the King of the Horse Riders.
Yes, of course, the political classes are some giant conspiracy.
Of course, it does rather raise the question of why the Remain camp in the referendum was quite so extraordinarily incompetent. But, don't worry, I'm sure you can think of a couple of good (albeit absurd) explanations.
Quick question for you: who exactly is in on this plan? Presumably, the government would need to be, because otherwise they might have very sensibly ignored his ridiculous comments.
I call this the Gamelin Hypothesis
1) Maurice Gustave Gamelin was actually Graf von Schwabing in disguise.
Or
2) Maurice Gustave Gamelin and the rest of the French general staff were staggeringly incompetent.
He can't have been von Schwabing. Schwabing was put in the front line.
I hope that, whichever party gets to appoint the next chair and DG at the BBC, they realise it might be best to appoint somebody non-political, and with experience of running a broadcasting organisation.
My sister-in-law currently runs S4C, so she might be available...
I am prepared to serve as Chairman or Director-General of the BBC.
You as Chairman, me as DG?
Winner of the first punning contest gets to interview Boris Johnson.
Works for me.
As Director-General I would be the editor-in-chief of the BBC, I would send edicts insisting every story on the website, television, and radio had to include at least one pun.
"Truncated, 20’ version of #MatchOfTheDay with no #GaryLineker, none of the regular panellists & no match commentary watched by 2.6million viewers, 2nd biggest audience of the day on BBC1. (For comparison, previous 2 editions watched by 2.1m & 2m, much longer programmes of course)"
"Last night's Match of the Day was watched by 2.58m TV viewers on BBC One. Up nearly half a million on last Saturday's figure of 2.09 million according to BARB overnights
It's the show's biggest audience since 5th November 2022 when 2.63m watched"
There were claims on here yesterday that it had been rating significantly higher than the above numbers - they were not correct.
And worth bearing those numbers in mind re whether the story justifies such prominence on BBC News (and discussion of Lineker's BBC salary!). It is no longer a high rating programme.
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™
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.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
The highest paid BBC employee can say/tweet whatever he likes?
That's a strange rule for a state broadcaster
What if he did want to foment rebellion?
He isn't free to say what he likes. He's acting within his contract.
*always check the contract and the wording*
So he doesn't have freedom of speech (except on football, where he says fuck all), whereas the post I was responding to suggested he does/should?
He doesn't have freedom of speech in the areas dictated by his contract. aka football. Elsewhere, not a problem.
No limit to what the idiot can say outside of football?
Without being fired?
Clearly he can’t say anything because, for example, saying certain things is criminal.
Your obsessive hate of Lineker adds you to the weird list of monomanias on here, after BJO’s irrational loathing of SKS, and Stuart Dickson’s creepy hate of the English.
Emma Lousie Jones looks a good replacement for Lineker. He's neither use nor ornament. She's certainly ornament. And it's time we had a female in the interests of diversity.
BBC needs major reform under Labour to keep it away from the government
You mean privatisation?
Certainly end the licence fee = any BBC employees can say what they like.
They couldn't. You have hate speech laws, the concept of bringing your employer into disrepute, or maybe you just say something that in one way or another makes you untenable in your role.
Well obviously, but maybe I didn’t add all the clauses and exceptions because that obvious?
I have been thinking about immigration, I wonder whether the pro immigration people aren't really contributing to keeping places shit holes....not totally sold on the idea but here is some thought
1) Some places are shitholes and need people to stand up and say no 2) When places are shitholes many prefer emigrating to living in a shit hole or standing up....understandably its a safer option 3) Most of those managing to emigrate will be the middle class 4) Most revolutions are driven by the middle class ultimately
So the theory, migration and allowing it weakens the middle class in shit hole countries that need reform thus making it less likely they will get changed
Not totally sold, a theory I am pondering so throwing it out to see what people think
I would think that much emigration is just driven by people fleeing some kind of political insecurity, ie you have fallen out the powers that be. Then there is also just poverty and lack of opportunity to better yourself.
The point that I have made about this subject is that if you are 'pro immigration' you need to define a limit, and also a test for which cases are ok to let in. The problem is that globally, there is a near unlimited amount of people that would fall in to the description I have set out above, so there is always going to be a moral dilemma, it is naive to think otherwise.
Yes, in some of those "shithole" countries if you stand up and say so you'll be killed or locked up. Hence why you might prefer to leave if you can.
You could make a fair case for asylum for the entire Chinese & Russia populations.
I think I may need to investigate another extension on my house.
I've never understood why we were granting refuge to men fleeing Ukraine, presumably with the goal of avoiding compulsory military service, whilst denying the same to people from Russia, who were in a similar position; whilst supposedly backing the Ukrainian army. Anyone able to explain how this is a good idea?
Comments
I'm pretty disappointed that the PB Crufts Correspondent hasn't told us..
This England rugby team is a shadow of the side that thrashed NZ in 2019 in the WC semi. Yet France we’re astonishingly good yesterday, as good as that England performance 4 years ago. They would have beaten anyone, let alone a weak England side who have lost their way.
Back in 2003 the England team were described in NZ as White Orcs on steroids. They are hobbits at the moment.
I would be surprised if there is much of a notice period in the contract, especially as Lineker is currently embroiled in the whole disguised employment legal case
Honestly, it sounds like their risk management has been a lot better than other small-medium sized tech SV tech firms. Their cash on hand was at least split across multiple banks, so they can still make payroll.
It’s the idiots who left all their cash in SVB as their sole source of banking & are bleating about government bailouts online who I have no time for. It’s all “disrupt everything!” when they get to make money, but “where’s my bailout?” when they mess up their risk management. Not a good look.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/12/china-byd-blames-brexit-as-it-rules-out-uk-for-first-european-car-plant
I am feeling positive about the Ashes too. Rugby is a lost cause for us.
The point that I have made about this subject is that if you are 'pro immigration' you need to define a limit, and also a test for which cases are ok to let in. The problem is that globally, there is a near unlimited amount of people that would fall in to the description I have set out above, so there is always going to be a moral dilemma, it is naive to think otherwise.
At the time of the vote it seemed like Brexit would be bad news for the British car industry, but the PB brain trust assured us no such thing could possibly come to pass.
How could they get this one so wrong?
@BethRigby
UPDATE: Senior BBC source tells me rumours that Richard Sharp about to resign as chair are “untrue” #Lineker
We will come back in rugby May take a few years. I remember Ireland and Scotland teams that were embarrassing. Now they are good.
BBC director-general flies home for crisis talks with presenter
George Osborne has backed Gary Lineker in his row with the BBC and criticised former colleagues’ rhetoric around asylum policy.
The former chancellor also spoke up for Tim Davie, the BBC director-general, who has flown back from the US to try to end the dispute, but described the whole situation as a “bit of a mess”.
Davie was in Washington DC but travelled overnight to resolve a crisis that has severely disrupted the corporation’s sports coverage over the weekend. He is back in the UK with BBC insiders hopeful that a resolution can be found in which Lineker returns to TV screens next weekend.
Osborne, speaking to The Andrew Neil Show on Channel 4, said: “Personally I think some of the language used on immigration by some Conservatives – not all – is not acceptable. I have a lot of sympathy for Tim Davie, the director-general, who’s trying to maintain impartiality for the BBC in a partisan age. But it’s all ended up in a bit of a mess.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/richard-sharp-bbc-crisis-fuels-calls-for-chairman-to-quit-8n6x9dlcz
But it is certainly true that a contractors tend to have many fewer protections. With that said, during the Y2K scrum in the UK, I saw people who had contracts that guaranteed them pay through to the end of January 2000, and where the contractor would essentially be paid under all circumstances.
I mention this, because it would be odd to say "what you say on social media matters if you are Lineker, but not if you are Matt Le Tissier".
‘20 years on, memories of the Iraq war may have faded, but it shaped the diminished UK we know today’
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/12/iraq-war-diminished-uk-2003-public-trust-government
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64931626
1m
Former immigration minister Caroline Nokes becomes the first Tory MP (I think) to say they won’t vote for the Illegal Migration Bill.
Says it risks criminalizing pregnant women, children and families.
More likely we see the end of the Tory stooges first.
There are plenty of bits of SVB that are profitable. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a large US bank (perhaps Goldman) pick it up while wiping out all the shareholders and junior creditors.
Sauce for the goose and all.
Where can Conservay-minded quangocrats come from? (Hence people like Richard Sharp, or Toby Young.)
Enough of that. I thought my Dave quip about the W. Ham v Villa draw was hilarious. Sadly no one agreed.
Clearly not among true-blue believers, though seems they've dented even their morale & confidence somewhat. Anti-woke still a rallying cry for rallying the base, esp. parts flaking off toward Reform.
However, with swing-voters, whose votes are up for grabs between Conservatives and a LESS right-wing option, the story, reckon it's a different story.
About time for someone with the PM's and CUP's interest(s) at heart, to start giving direction to stop digging, and start re-filling the hole the Tories have dug for themselves.
Maybe George Osborne's statement is part of that?
Avoiding becoming the puppet, perceived or actual, of political concerns is actually achievable. These spats don't keep afflicting ITV.
which rather surprised HMRC because IR35 requires a limited company to be involved. From what I gather the court case is going to be a joy to read when the judgement is released
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
I also agee, It should be totally non political and not dependent on a licence fee from the public
Those tweets and the account that made them are deleted now
https://twitter.com/andybell2000/status/1634208929428254728?t=jfEgwtYEV40HWoTlXQHdtQ&s=19
Every piece of legislative progress than diverges us from the EU, puts us on a secure footing as an independent country in control of our borders, or can lead to economic growth in a post-EU context, is being dropped, quietly or noisily, by the Sunak Government.
Osborne's commentary within that context reminds me of that slithery man in the Lord of the Rings who was advising the King of the Horse Riders.
Simply screwing up is a more likely explanation.
That's a strange rule for a state broadcaster
What if he did want to foment rebellion?
My sister-in-law currently runs S4C, so she might be available...
Of course, it does rather raise the question of why the Remain camp in the referendum was quite so extraordinarily incompetent. But, don't worry, I'm sure you can think of a couple of good (albeit absurd) explanations.
Quick question for you: who exactly is in on this plan? Presumably, the government would need to be, because otherwise they might have very sensibly ignored his ridiculous comments.
*always check the contract and the wording*
Now, what if he were to come out and say "black people are subhuman". Well, I think that would fail the ability to do his job impartially. Plus, I suspect, millions of people would stop watching MOTD in protest.
I think I may need to investigate another extension on my house.
Think on that the next time you pay your water bill.
https://twitter.com/feargal_sharkey/status/1634844443974201344?s=46
Lineker should be one of those
Until he goes commercial
He needs to be a real capitalist before he can act like his underlying communist
1) Maurice Gustave Gamelin was actually Graf von Schwabing in disguise.
Or
2) Maurice Gustave Gamelin and the rest of the French general staff were staggeringly incompetent.
You sound utterly deranged when you talk about him.
Without being fired?
Winner of the first punning contest gets to interview Boris Johnson.
As Director-General I would be the editor-in-chief of the BBC, I would send edicts insisting every story on the website, television, and radio had to include at least one pun.
You've made a defamatory comment about Gary Lineker, not acceptable.
"Truncated, 20’ version of #MatchOfTheDay with no #GaryLineker, none of the regular panellists & no match commentary watched by 2.6million viewers, 2nd biggest audience of the day on BBC1. (For comparison, previous 2 editions watched by 2.1m & 2m, much longer programmes of course)"
https://twitter.com/LiamHamilton16/status/1634860919225479169
"Last night's Match of the Day was watched by 2.58m TV viewers on BBC One. Up nearly half a million on last Saturday's figure of 2.09 million according to BARB overnights
It's the show's biggest audience since 5th November 2022 when 2.63m watched"
https://mobile.twitter.com/lizo_mzimba/status/1634854980824997888
There were claims on here yesterday that it had been rating significantly higher than the above numbers - they were not correct.
And worth bearing those numbers in mind re whether the story justifies such prominence on BBC News (and discussion of Lineker's BBC salary!). It is no longer a high rating programme.
Your obsessive hate of Lineker adds you to the weird list of monomanias on here, after BJO’s irrational loathing of SKS, and Stuart Dickson’s creepy hate of the English.
Emma Lousie Jones looks a good replacement for Lineker. He's neither use nor ornament. She's certainly ornament. And it's time we had a female in the interests of diversity.