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?
"90% of Ukrainian refugees are women and children, while most Ukrainian men age 18 to 60 are banned from leaving the country."
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.
Lots of oppressed people in the world for sure. That's a sad fact.
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.
Exactly. If I am not paying for Lineker he can say what he likes.
He can say what he likes anyway because you are not funding him in his own time. Why do you think you are? Just like you and I can say what we like and just like all BBC people, we can all do the same. What is wrong with you and censorship?
The only restrictions are:
a) They can not say what they like in their BBC roles b) There are limits outside of their BBC roles just as there are with all of us if what we say is illegal or would be grounds for dismissal for bringing our employers into disrepute.
Why do you have these totalitarian views?
Why do you think it is ok for you to spout your views here, but it is not ok for Gary Lineker?
Why do you not want to fire all the other people who have done the same over the years eg Sugar, Neil, Meaden, Hislop, Clarkson, etc, etc?
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.
Yeah, right. The master spy/disguise artist couldn’t fake his own death in a WWI trench with several thousand corpses going spare.
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.
Lots of oppressed people in the world for sure. That's a sad fact.
What is doubly sad is the poor standard of the oppression.
@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?
Value for money at 1.3 million.. jeez
You might not think so. I might not think so. But funnily enough the people who matter and with the knowledge do, so tough.
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?
"90% of Ukrainian refugees are women and children, while most Ukrainian men age 18 to 60 are banned from leaving the country."
I am not aware of any country limiting entry to women or children. It seems that there are large numbers of male refugees, ie in the hundreds of thousands, despite men between 18 and 60 being oestensibly being unable to leave Ukraine.
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?
OK - but there are plenty of exceptions.
And I’d be here all night typing them, which is why I didn’t, allowing well educated and untelligent folk on pb to understand without labouring a point. But then I’m a scientist and not a lawyer…
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.
Exactly. If I am not paying for Lineker he can say what he likes.
He can say what he likes anyway because you are not funding him in his own time. Why do you think you are? Just like you and I can say what we like and just like all BBC people, we can all do the same. What is wrong with you and censorship?
The only restrictions are:
a) They can not say what they like in their BBC roles b) There are limits outside of their BBC roles just as there are with all of us if what we say is illegal or would be grounds for dismissal for bringing our employers into disrepute.
Why do you have these totalitarian views?
Why do you think it is ok for you to spout your views here, but it is not ok for Gary Lineker?
Why do you not want to fire all the other people who have done the same over the years eg Sugar, Neil, Meaden, Hislop, Clarkson, etc, etc?
you ought to write a thread on it.
I think its the reference how ever obliquely to nazis that's got people so pissed off about it.
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for 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.
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?
"90% of Ukrainian refugees are women and children, while most Ukrainian men age 18 to 60 are banned from leaving the country."
I am not aware of any country limiting entry to women or children. It seems that there are large numbers of male refugees, ie in the hundreds of thousands, despite men between 18 and 60 being oestensibly being unable to leave Ukraine.
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.
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.
Exactly. If I am not paying for Lineker he can say what he likes.
He can say what he likes anyway because you are not funding him in his own time. Why do you think you are? Just like you and I can say what we like and just like all BBC people, we can all do the same. What is wrong with you and censorship?
The only restrictions are:
a) They can not say what they like in their BBC roles b) There are limits outside of their BBC roles just as there are with all of us if what we say is illegal or would be grounds for dismissal for bringing our employers into disrepute.
Why do you have these totalitarian views?
Why do you think it is ok for you to spout your views here, but it is not ok for Gary Lineker?
Why do you not want to fire all the other people who have done the same over the years eg Sugar, Neil, Meaden, Hislop, Clarkson, etc, etc?
you ought to write a thread on it.
I think its the reference how ever obliquely to nazis that's got people so pissed off about it.
a) Why would I do that when it has been talked to death here, with no mean contribution by yourself.
b) Most people aren't pissed off about Linekers post. In fact I wouldn't even have known it had happened if it wasn't raised by others. Only right wing nutters who want us all censored are upset by it.
On a more general note - What is wrong with you? 99% of your posts regardless of the subject are so bitter and your posts this morning calling me Mike were just bizarre. What on earth was that about?
Lighten up. Tell a joke or two here. Don't be negative about everything.
Are you this angry all the time? Get some joy in your life.
FWIW - Forget SVB, this is what keeps me up at night, professionally.
If you're worried about what happens when one midsized regional bank doesn't repay its depositors, wait till you find out what happens if House Republicans force the government of the United States to default on its massive worldwide multi-trillion dollar obligations
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.
Lots of oppressed people in the world for sure. That's a sad fact.
I think that ultimately most people in the world have to tolerate some kind of oppression. That is why people want to live here, it isn't perfect, but it is better than other places.
What I find difficult to understand is why we are so hard on ourselves about the situation - this is my main objection to 'woke' thinking. I don't mind self criticism with the aim of progress, but a lot of people have an exaggerated negative perception of the UK, which I find naive and frustrating.
@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?
Value for money at 1.3 million.. jeez
You might not think so. I might not think so. But funnily enough the people who matter and with the knowledge do, so tough.
Not sure I buy that. People who matter and had knowledge thought a lot of PPE deals were value for money in 2020.
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
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.
Exactly. If I am not paying for Lineker he can say what he likes.
He can say what he likes anyway because you are not funding him in his own time. Why do you think you are? Just like you and I can say what we like and just like all BBC people, we can all do the same. What is wrong with you and censorship?
The only restrictions are:
a) They can not say what they like in their BBC roles b) There are limits outside of their BBC roles just as there are with all of us if what we say is illegal or would be grounds for dismissal for bringing our employers into disrepute.
Why do you have these totalitarian views?
Why do you think it is ok for you to spout your views here, but it is not ok for Gary Lineker?
Why do you not want to fire all the other people who have done the same over the years eg Sugar, Neil, Meaden, Hislop, Clarkson, etc, etc?
you ought to write a thread on it.
I think its the reference how ever obliquely to nazis that's got people so pissed off about it.
a) Why would I do that when it has been talked to death here, with no mean contribution by yourself.
b) Most people aren't pissed off about Linekers post. In fact I wouldn't even have known it had happened if it wasn't raised by others. Only right wing nutters who want us all censored are upset by it.
On a more general note - What is wrong with you? 99% of your posts regardless of the subject are so bitter and your posts this morning calling me Mike were just bizarre. What on earth was that about?
Lighten up. Tell a joke or two here. Don't be negative about everything.
Are you this angry all the time? Get some joy in your life.
To be fair there are several posters who seem to be angry all the time, when a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit would be a good idea
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
The BBC being in breach of their contract with the PL?
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
The BBC being in breach of their contract with the PL?
FWIW - Forget SVB, this is what keeps me up at night, professionally.
If you're worried about what happens when one midsized regional bank doesn't repay its depositors, wait till you find out what happens if House Republicans force the government of the United States to default on its massive worldwide multi-trillion dollar obligations
They've always stepped back from the brink before. Dangerous brinkmanship though it was, the current crop do not seem like the type to bluff on such a thing.
FWIW - Forget SVB, this is what keeps me up at night, professionally.
If you're worried about what happens when one midsized regional bank doesn't repay its depositors, wait till you find out what happens if House Republicans force the government of the United States to default on its massive worldwide multi-trillion dollar obligations
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.
Exactly. If I am not paying for Lineker he can say what he likes.
He can say what he likes anyway because you are not funding him in his own time. Why do you think you are? Just like you and I can say what we like and just like all BBC people, we can all do the same. What is wrong with you and censorship?
The only restrictions are:
a) They can not say what they like in their BBC roles b) There are limits outside of their BBC roles just as there are with all of us if what we say is illegal or would be grounds for dismissal for bringing our employers into disrepute.
Why do you have these totalitarian views?
Why do you think it is ok for you to spout your views here, but it is not ok for Gary Lineker?
Why do you not want to fire all the other people who have done the same over the years eg Sugar, Neil, Meaden, Hislop, Clarkson, etc, etc?
you ought to write a thread on it.
I think its the reference how ever obliquely to nazis that's got people so pissed off about it.
a) Why would I do that when it has been talked to death here, with no mean contribution by yourself.
b) Most people aren't pissed off about Linekers post. In fact I wouldn't even have known it had happened if it wasn't raised by others. Only right wing nutters who want us all censored are upset by it.
On a more general note - What is wrong with you? 99% of your posts regardless of the subject are so bitter and your posts this morning calling me Mike were just bizarre. What on earth was that about?
Lighten up. Tell a joke or two here. Don't be negative about everything.
Are you this angry all the time? Get some joy in your life.
To be fair there are several posters who seem to be angry all the time, when a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit would be a good idea
FWIW - Forget SVB, this is what keeps me up at night, professionally.
If you're worried about what happens when one midsized regional bank doesn't repay its depositors, wait till you find out what happens if House Republicans force the government of the United States to default on its massive worldwide multi-trillion dollar obligations
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
The BBC being in breach of their contract with the PL?
I doubt it says there has to be a presenter
It's expected to be a prestige product not a youtube video.
@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?
Value for money at 1.3 million.. jeez
You might not think so. I might not think so. But funnily enough the people who matter and with the knowledge do, so tough.
Not sure I buy that. People who matter and had knowledge thought a lot of PPE deals were value for money in 2020.
a) If you are referring to the Govt they don't decide who presents MOTD
b) You may be right and the people who decide whether the presenters of MOTD are value for money might be useless, but they are almost certainly less useless than me and @squareroot2 as both of us, I assume, have f*** all knowledge on the subject.
Unlike @squareroot2 I don't pretend to have any knowledge in this area.
@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?
Value for money at 1.3 million.. jeez
You might not think so. I might not think so. But funnily enough the people who matter and with the knowledge do, so tough.
Not sure I buy that. People who matter and had knowledge thought a lot of PPE deals were value for money in 2020.
a) If you are referring to the Govt they don't decide who presents MOTD
b) You may be right and the people who decide whether the presenters of MOTD are value for money might be useless, but they are almost certainly less useless than me and @squareroot2 as both of us, I assume, have f*** all knowledge on the subject.
Unlike @squareroot2 I don't pretend to have any knowledge in this area.
This lot had enough trouble deciding who was going to present the Budget.
@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?
Value for money at 1.3 million.. jeez
You might not think so. I might not think so. But funnily enough the people who matter and with the knowledge do, so tough.
Not sure I buy that. People who matter and had knowledge thought a lot of PPE deals were value for money in 2020.
a) If you are referring to the Govt they don't decide who presents MOTD
b) You may be right and the people who decide whether the presenters of MOTD are value for money might be useless, but they are almost certainly less useless than me and @squareroot2 as both of us, I assume, have f*** all knowledge on the subject.
It was more about not always deferring to the ‘experts’. There exists a different model for MOTD with a refreshed presenting team, and much more recently retired pundits, and a chance to save some money on the salaries. CoL crisis?
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
The BBC being in breach of their contract with the PL?
I doubt it says there has to be a presenter
Bollocks. There will be conditions, strict conditions, on how it is presented. I’ve never worked on Premier League rights (I wish) but I have worked on the employment/consultancy aspects of other media deals and the manner of presentation is intrinsic to the final agreement. It’s not just “here you do, so what you want with it for four years” - the PL is a jealously guarded product and tacks strict conditions on how it is presented.
FWIW - Forget SVB, this is what keeps me up at night, professionally.
If you're worried about what happens when one midsized regional bank doesn't repay its depositors, wait till you find out what happens if House Republicans force the government of the United States to default on its massive worldwide multi-trillion dollar obligations
FWIW - Forget SVB, this is what keeps me up at night, professionally.
If you're worried about what happens when one midsized regional bank doesn't repay its depositors, wait till you find out what happens if House Republicans force the government of the United States to default on its massive worldwide multi-trillion dollar obligations
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?
OK - but there are plenty of exceptions.
And I’d be here all night typing them, which is why I didn’t, allowing well educated and untelligent folk on pb to understand without labouring a point. But then I’m a scientist and not a lawyer…
Right. But some people (OK so not you) really do think there should be much greater freedom of speech if you're in the private sector.
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.
Exactly. If I am not paying for Lineker he can say what he likes.
He can say what he likes anyway because you are not funding him in his own time. Why do you think you are? Just like you and I can say what we like and just like all BBC people, we can all do the same. What is wrong with you and censorship?
The only restrictions are:
a) They can not say what they like in their BBC roles b) There are limits outside of their BBC roles just as there are with all of us if what we say is illegal or would be grounds for dismissal for bringing our employers into disrepute.
Why do you have these totalitarian views?
Why do you think it is ok for you to spout your views here, but it is not ok for Gary Lineker?
Why do you not want to fire all the other people who have done the same over the years eg Sugar, Neil, Meaden, Hislop, Clarkson, etc, etc?
you ought to write a thread on it.
I think its the reference how ever obliquely to nazis that's got people so pissed off about it.
a) Why would I do that when it has been talked to death here, with no mean contribution by yourself.
b) Most people aren't pissed off about Linekers post. In fact I wouldn't even have known it had happened if it wasn't raised by others. Only right wing nutters who want us all censored are upset by it.
On a more general note - What is wrong with you? 99% of your posts regardless of the subject are so bitter and your posts this morning calling me Mike were just bizarre. What on earth was that about?
Lighten up. Tell a joke or two here. Don't be negative about everything.
Are you this angry all the time? Get some joy in your life.
To be fair there are several posters who seem to be angry all the time, when a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit would be a good idea
Kjh is always on my case.
a) I'm not, if you look back I have commented positively about a few of your posts and liked some of them. Care to check. Pretty easy to do.
b) If I am on your case for the majority of your posts it is because you are being a very angry pillock so you qualify for getting criticism on both counts, in particular the very angry stuff. It is not as if it is because you have fallen out with someone here (we all do that), but you come in angry on everything from post one. And there is no humour at all. None. You come over as a very angry man, which is very sad.
@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?
Value for money at 1.3 million.. jeez
You might not think so. I might not think so. But funnily enough the people who matter and with the knowledge do, so tough.
Not sure I buy that. People who matter and had knowledge thought a lot of PPE deals were value for money in 2020.
a) If you are referring to the Govt they don't decide who presents MOTD
b) You may be right and the people who decide whether the presenters of MOTD are value for money might be useless, but they are almost certainly less useless than me and @squareroot2 as both of us, I assume, have f*** all knowledge on the subject.
Unlike @squareroot2 I don't pretend to have any knowledge in this area.
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?
"90% of Ukrainian refugees are women and children, while most Ukrainian men age 18 to 60 are banned from leaving the country."
Well yes. The day the war started, men of military age were banned from leaving the country, and need to get a permit for a visit abroad. I know a lot of wives and children, who haven’t seen husbands and fathers in more than a year.
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.
Exactly. If I am not paying for Lineker he can say what he likes.
He can say what he likes anyway because you are not funding him in his own time. Why do you think you are? Just like you and I can say what we like and just like all BBC people, we can all do the same. What is wrong with you and censorship?
The only restrictions are:
a) They can not say what they like in their BBC roles b) There are limits outside of their BBC roles just as there are with all of us if what we say is illegal or would be grounds for dismissal for bringing our employers into disrepute.
Why do you have these totalitarian views?
Why do you think it is ok for you to spout your views here, but it is not ok for Gary Lineker?
Why do you not want to fire all the other people who have done the same over the years eg Sugar, Neil, Meaden, Hislop, Clarkson, etc, etc?
you ought to write a thread on it.
I think its the reference how ever obliquely to nazis that's got people so pissed off about it.
a) Why would I do that when it has been talked to death here, with no mean contribution by yourself.
b) Most people aren't pissed off about Linekers post. In fact I wouldn't even have known it had happened if it wasn't raised by others. Only right wing nutters who want us all censored are upset by it.
On a more general note - What is wrong with you? 99% of your posts regardless of the subject are so bitter and your posts this morning calling me Mike were just bizarre. What on earth was that about?
Lighten up. Tell a joke or two here. Don't be negative about everything.
Are you this angry all the time? Get some joy in your life.
To be fair there are several posters who seem to be angry all the time, when a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit would be a good idea
BigG you are the model of a polite poster. We have had many discussions and mutual likes. It is a pleasure discussing stuff with you.
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?
OK - but there are plenty of exceptions.
And I’d be here all night typing them, which is why I didn’t, allowing well educated and untelligent folk on pb to understand without labouring a point. But then I’m a scientist and not a lawyer…
Right. But some people (OK so not you) really do think there should be much greater freedom of speech if you're in the private sector.
Freedom of speech should never be absolute. We are in dangerous waters around offence, as opposed to things that society regards as illegal. I believe, within reason, it’s ok to write and say things that may offend some people. I do not believe in god, and regard all religions as ridiculous. Some may be offended by that. I believe that, with the exception of a small number of unfortunate people, the idea of being trans is probably not the best way to make people happy, but that’s my opinion, and others will disagree. I’d rather society woke up more to having less definition of men and women, and more tolerance of just being people.
@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?
Value for money at 1.3 million.. jeez
You might not think so. I might not think so. But funnily enough the people who matter and with the knowledge do, so tough.
Not sure I buy that. People who matter and had knowledge thought a lot of PPE deals were value for money in 2020.
a) If you are referring to the Govt they don't decide who presents MOTD
b) You may be right and the people who decide whether the presenters of MOTD are value for money might be useless, but they are almost certainly less useless than me and @squareroot2 as both of us, I assume, have f*** all knowledge on the subject.
Unlike @squareroot2 I don't pretend to have any knowledge in this area.
I just said I didn't think 1.3 million was vfm.
And I responded politely and with a logical reason why you might (but not necessarily) be mistaken. That is neither of us have the expertise that those who make the decisions should have. To be honest I have no idea if he is value for money. I think he is good but as you say it is a lot of money. You might try reading what I say.
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?
OK - but there are plenty of exceptions.
And I’d be here all night typing them, which is why I didn’t, allowing well educated and untelligent folk on pb to understand without labouring a point. But then I’m a scientist and not a lawyer…
Right. But some people (OK so not you) really do think there should be much greater freedom of speech if you're in the private sector.
Freedom of speech should never be absolute. We are in dangerous waters around offence, as opposed to things that society regards as illegal. I believe, within reason, it’s ok to write and say things that may offend some people. I do not believe in god, and regard all religions as ridiculous. Some may be offended by that. I believe that, with the exception of a small number of unfortunate people, the idea of being trans is probably not the best way to make people happy, but that’s my opinion, and others will disagree. I’d rather society woke up more to having less definition of men and women, and more tolerance of just being people.
I find your tolerance of offending offensive people intolerably offensive.
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
We went through the numbers on this yesterday. MOTD is the most expensive programme the BBC produces, they pay £70.5m to the Premier League every year for the highlights rights, even before they’ve made the programme with those expensive presenters.
As a comparison, Eastenders, the BBC’s highest rated programme, costs £30m a year to make. Soap actors don’t get footballer or football pundit salaries, most of them earn high five figures.
@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?
Value for money at 1.3 million.. jeez
You might not think so. I might not think so. But funnily enough the people who matter and with the knowledge do, so tough.
Not sure I buy that. People who matter and had knowledge thought a lot of PPE deals were value for money in 2020.
a) If you are referring to the Govt they don't decide who presents MOTD
b) You may be right and the people who decide whether the presenters of MOTD are value for money might be useless, but they are almost certainly less useless than me and @squareroot2 as both of us, I assume, have f*** all knowledge on the subject.
Unlike @squareroot2 I don't pretend to have any knowledge in this area.
This lot had enough trouble deciding who was going to present the Budget.
I'm not sure the experiment of having frequently-changing guest Chancellors is working out.
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?
OK - but there are plenty of exceptions.
And I’d be here all night typing them, which is why I didn’t, allowing well educated and untelligent folk on pb to understand without labouring a point. But then I’m a scientist and not a lawyer…
Right. But some people (OK so not you) really do think there should be much greater freedom of speech if you're in the private sector.
Freedom of speech should never be absolute. We are in dangerous waters around offence, as opposed to things that society regards as illegal. I believe, within reason, it’s ok to write and say things that may offend some people. I do not believe in god, and regard all religions as ridiculous. Some may be offended by that. I believe that, with the exception of a small number of unfortunate people, the idea of being trans is probably not the best way to make people happy, but that’s my opinion, and others will disagree. I’d rather society woke up more to having less definition of men and women, and more tolerance of just being people.
I find your tolerance of offending offensive people intolerably offensive.
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?
OK - but there are plenty of exceptions.
And I’d be here all night typing them, which is why I didn’t, allowing well educated and untelligent folk on pb to understand without labouring a point. But then I’m a scientist and not a lawyer…
Right. But some people (OK so not you) really do think there should be much greater freedom of speech if you're in the private sector.
Freedom of speech should never be absolute. We are in dangerous waters around offence, as opposed to things that society regards as illegal. I believe, within reason, it’s ok to write and say things that may offend some people. I do not believe in god, and regard all religions as ridiculous. Some may be offended by that. I believe that, with the exception of a small number of unfortunate people, the idea of being trans is probably not the best way to make people happy, but that’s my opinion, and others will disagree. I’d rather society woke up more to having less definition of men and women, and more tolerance of just being people.
Why the word 'unfortunate' in line 4? Neither necessary nor accurate.
@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?
Value for money at 1.3 million.. jeez
You might not think so. I might not think so. But funnily enough the people who matter and with the knowledge do, so tough.
Not sure I buy that. People who matter and had knowledge thought a lot of PPE deals were value for money in 2020.
a) If you are referring to the Govt they don't decide who presents MOTD
b) You may be right and the people who decide whether the presenters of MOTD are value for money might be useless, but they are almost certainly less useless than me and @squareroot2 as both of us, I assume, have f*** all knowledge on the subject.
Unlike @squareroot2 I don't pretend to have any knowledge in this area.
This lot had enough trouble deciding who was going to present the Budget.
I'm not sure the experiment of having frequently-changing guest Chancellors is working out.
Astonishing to think Jeremy Hunt will be only the second Chancellor out of the last five Chancellors to actually present a budget.
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.
Exactly. If I am not paying for Lineker he can say what he likes.
He can say what he likes anyway because you are not funding him in his own time. Why do you think you are? Just like you and I can say what we like and just like all BBC people, we can all do the same. What is wrong with you and censorship?
The only restrictions are:
a) They can not say what they like in their BBC roles b) There are limits outside of their BBC roles just as there are with all of us if what we say is illegal or would be grounds for dismissal for bringing our employers into disrepute.
Why do you have these totalitarian views?
Why do you think it is ok for you to spout your views here, but it is not ok for Gary Lineker?
Why do you not want to fire all the other people who have done the same over the years eg Sugar, Neil, Meaden, Hislop, Clarkson, etc, etc?
you ought to write a thread on it.
I think its the reference how ever obliquely to nazis that's got people so pissed off about it.
a) Why would I do that when it has been talked to death here, with no mean contribution by yourself.
b) Most people aren't pissed off about Linekers post. In fact I wouldn't even have known it had happened if it wasn't raised by others. Only right wing nutters who want us all censored are upset by it.
On a more general note - What is wrong with you? 99% of your posts regardless of the subject are so bitter and your posts this morning calling me Mike were just bizarre. What on earth was that about?
Lighten up. Tell a joke or two here. Don't be negative about everything.
Are you this angry all the time? Get some joy in your life.
To be fair there are several posters who seem to be angry all the time, when a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit would be a good idea
BigG you are the model of a polite poster. We have had many discussions and mutual likes. It is a pleasure discussing stuff with you.
@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?
Value for money at 1.3 million.. jeez
You might not think so. I might not think so. But funnily enough the people who matter and with the knowledge do, so tough.
Not sure I buy that. People who matter and had knowledge thought a lot of PPE deals were value for money in 2020.
a) If you are referring to the Govt they don't decide who presents MOTD
b) You may be right and the people who decide whether the presenters of MOTD are value for money might be useless, but they are almost certainly less useless than me and @squareroot2 as both of us, I assume, have f*** all knowledge on the subject.
Unlike @squareroot2 I don't pretend to have any knowledge in this area.
I just said I didn't think 1.3 million was vfm.
And I responded politely and with a logical reason why you might (but not necessarily) be mistaken. That is neither of us have the expertise that those who make the decisions should have. To be honest I have no idea if he is value for money. I think he is good but as you say it is a lot of money. You might try reading
@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?
Value for money at 1.3 million.. jeez
You might not think so. I might not think so. But funnily enough the people who matter and with the knowledge do, so tough.
Not sure I buy that. People who matter and had knowledge thought a lot of PPE deals were value for money in 2020.
a) If you are referring to the Govt they don't decide who presents MOTD
b) You may be right and the people who decide whether the presenters of MOTD are value for money might be useless, but they are almost certainly less useless than me and @squareroot2 as both of us, I assume, have f*** all knowledge on the subject.
Unlike @squareroot2 I don't pretend to have any knowledge in this area.
I just said I didn't think 1.3 million was vfm.
And I responded politely and with a logical reason why you might (but not necessarily) be mistaken. That is neither of us have the expertise that those who make the decisions should have. To be honest I have no idea if he is value for money. I think he is good but as you say it is a lot of money. You might try reading what I say.
Since you were rude to.me I scanned it for anything useful. There rarely is. I feel sure other posters do thst to my post
That's it for now see you all.in a week. I am on holiday.
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
We went through the numbers on this yesterday. MOTD is the most expensive programme the BBC produces, they pay £70.5m to the Premier League every year for the highlights rights, even before they’ve made the programme with those expensive presenters.
As a comparison, Eastenders, the BBC’s highest rated programme, costs £30m a year to make. Soap actors don’t get footballer or football pundit salaries, most of them earn high five figures.
And Eastenders will provide a heck of a lot more TV per year than MOTD...
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
We went through the numbers on this yesterday. MOTD is the most expensive programme the BBC produces, they pay £70.5m to the Premier League every year for the highlights rights, even before they’ve made the programme with those expensive presenters.
As a comparison, Eastenders, the BBC’s highest rated programme, costs £30m a year to make. Soap actors don’t get footballer or football pundit salaries, most of them earn high five figures.
And Eastenders will provide a heck of a lot more TV per year than MOTD...
It’s actually about the same. There’s also MOTD2, Football Focus, and Final Score. For 32 weeks or thereabouts. Eastenders is 3x30’ per week, 52 weeks a year.
@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?
Value for money at 1.3 million.. jeez
You might not think so. I might not think so. But funnily enough the people who matter and with the knowledge do, so tough.
Not sure I buy that. People who matter and had knowledge thought a lot of PPE deals were value for money in 2020.
a) If you are referring to the Govt they don't decide who presents MOTD
b) You may be right and the people who decide whether the presenters of MOTD are value for money might be useless, but they are almost certainly less useless than me and @squareroot2 as both of us, I assume, have f*** all knowledge on the subject.
Unlike @squareroot2 I don't pretend to have any knowledge in this area.
This lot had enough trouble deciding who was going to present the Budget.
I'm not sure the experiment of having frequently-changing guest Chancellors is working out.
Astonishing to think Jeremy Hunt will be only the second Chancellor out of the last five Chancellors to actually present a budget.
This government reminds me of 1930s Germany.
Weimar Germany with all its stability.
Not a good omen, given what followed the Weimar Republic.
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.
Lots of oppressed people in the world for sure. That's a sad fact.
I think that ultimately most people in the world have to tolerate some kind of oppression. That is why people want to live here, it isn't perfect, but it is better than other places.
What I find difficult to understand is why we are so hard on ourselves about the situation - this is my main objection to 'woke' thinking. I don't mind self criticism with the aim of progress, but a lot of people have an exaggerated negative perception of the UK, which I find naive and frustrating.
The open borders mob believe that the West is the planet's nexus of evil and responsible, through industrialisation and colonialism, for all its ills, so they are bound to hate it. For the more extreme Corbynite types, in particular, the ladder of oppression also comes into it, which is how they can so often be wilfully blind to the shortcomings of various of the world's despotisms. Being a friend of Hamas or a paid shill for Iran comes very easy when they are (a) enemies of the West and (b) various shades of Islamists occupy a higher rung on the ladder than, for example, gays who are strung up from cranes or thrown from the top of tall buildings.
They're also universalist: they think that absolutely everyone has the right to live wherever they like, and to harbour a belief to the contrary - i.e. to suggest that nationality still has some meaning, and that the state and the people might have some form of legitimate discretion as to whom is allowed to settle and whom is not - is a form of discrimination and therefore bigoted and racist.
Beyond that, it's simply a matter of lived experience. If you've spent all your life immersed in one flawed and imperfect culture, and convinced yourself that just about everyone in it and everything about it is terrible, then there's bound to be the tendency to idealise other parts of the world or, at least, not think about them all that much, which makes it easy to convince yourself that everywhere else is better. Invite all the people who think Britain is actual Hell to live the life of an ordinary Russian or Saudi for a year or two and most of them, at any rate, might revise some of their opinions.
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
We went through the numbers on this yesterday. MOTD is the most expensive programme the BBC produces, they pay £70.5m to the Premier League every year for the highlights rights, even before they’ve made the programme with those expensive presenters.
As a comparison, Eastenders, the BBC’s highest rated programme, costs £30m a year to make. Soap actors don’t get footballer or football pundit salaries, most of them earn high five figures.
Looked at another way, Lineker's pay is a pretty minor part of the cost of the show. In fact, If he and his mates are turning 20 minutes of football into an hour of Saturday night telly every week for, let's say £5 million, that still looks relatively cheap.
(And yes, soaps are a very efficient way of getting viewers per pound. That's why ITV does so much Emmerdale and Corrie each weeknight. Doesn't make it a good watch.)
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
We went through the numbers on this yesterday. MOTD is the most expensive programme the BBC produces, they pay £70.5m to the Premier League every year for the highlights rights, even before they’ve made the programme with those expensive presenters.
As a comparison, Eastenders, the BBC’s highest rated programme, costs £30m a year to make. Soap actors don’t get footballer or football pundit salaries, most of them earn high five figures.
And Eastenders will provide a heck of a lot more TV per year than MOTD...
It’s actually about the same. There’s also MOTD2, Football Focus, and Final Score. For 32 weeks or thereabouts. Eastenders is 3x30’ per week, 52 weeks a year.
I'd give you MOTD2; but the others aren't MOTD.
And a quick check showed that Eastenders if four times a week (though after my mistake yesterday, you might want to check that... )
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.
Exactly. If I am not paying for Lineker he can say what he likes.
He can say what he likes anyway because you are not funding him in his own time. Why do you think you are? Just like you and I can say what we like and just like all BBC people, we can all do the same. What is wrong with you and censorship?
The only restrictions are:
a) They can not say what they like in their BBC roles b) There are limits outside of their BBC roles just as there are with all of us if what we say is illegal or would be grounds for dismissal for bringing our employers into disrepute.
Why do you have these totalitarian views?
Why do you think it is ok for you to spout your views here, but it is not ok for Gary Lineker?
Why do you not want to fire all the other people who have done the same over the years eg Sugar, Neil, Meaden, Hislop, Clarkson, etc, etc?
you ought to write a thread on it.
I think its the reference how ever obliquely to nazis that's got people so pissed off about it.
a) Why would I do that when it has been talked to death here, with no mean contribution by yourself.
b) Most people aren't pissed off about Linekers post. In fact I wouldn't even have known it had happened if it wasn't raised by others. Only right wing nutters who want us all censored are upset by it.
On a more general note - What is wrong with you? 99% of your posts regardless of the subject are so bitter and your posts this morning calling me Mike were just bizarre. What on earth was that about?
Lighten up. Tell a joke or two here. Don't be negative about everything.
Are you this angry all the time? Get some joy in your life.
To be fair there are several posters who seem to be angry all the time, when a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit would be a good idea
Free speech: talking positively about Gary Lineker, who can say whatever he likes Not Free Speech: talking negatively about Gary Lineker, where you cannot say whatever you like
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
We went through the numbers on this yesterday. MOTD is the most expensive programme the BBC produces, they pay £70.5m to the Premier League every year for the highlights rights, even before they’ve made the programme with those expensive presenters.
As a comparison, Eastenders, the BBC’s highest rated programme, costs £30m a year to make. Soap actors don’t get footballer or football pundit salaries, most of them earn high five figures.
And Eastenders will provide a heck of a lot more TV per year than MOTD...
It’s actually about the same. There’s also MOTD2, Football Focus, and Final Score. For 32 weeks or thereabouts. Eastenders is 3x30’ per week, 52 weeks a year.
I remember the days when, with a handful of channels, the 'Test Card' (nothing to do with cricket) was on for much of the day. Now, that was seriously cheap. Bring it back, I say.
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.
Lots of oppressed people in the world for sure. That's a sad fact.
I think that ultimately most people in the world have to tolerate some kind of oppression. That is why people want to live here, it isn't perfect, but it is better than other places.
What I find difficult to understand is why we are so hard on ourselves about the situation - this is my main objection to 'woke' thinking. I don't mind self criticism with the aim of progress, but a lot of people have an exaggerated negative perception of the UK, which I find naive and frustrating.
The open borders mob believe that the West is the planet's nexus of evil and responsible, through industrialisation and colonialism, for all its ills, so they are bound to hate it. For the more extreme Corbynite types, in particular, the ladder of oppression also comes into it, which is how they can so often be wilfully blind to the shortcomings of various of the world's despotisms. Being a friend of Hamas or a paid shill for Iran comes very easy when they are (a) enemies of the West and (b) various shades of Islamists occupy a higher rung on the ladder than, for example, gays who are strung up from cranes or thrown from the top of tall buildings.
They're also universalist: they think that absolutely everyone has the right to live wherever they like, and to harbour a belief to the contrary - i.e. to suggest that nationality still has some meaning, and that the state and the people might have some form of legitimate discretion as to whom is allowed to settle and whom is not - is a form of discrimination and therefore bigoted and racist.
Beyond that, it's simply a matter of lived experience. If you've spent all your life immersed in one flawed and imperfect culture, and convinced yourself that just about everyone in it and everything about it is terrible, then there's bound to be the tendency to idealise other parts of the world or, at least, not think about them all that much, which makes it easy to convince yourself that everywhere else is better. Invite all the people who think Britain is actual Hell to live the life of an ordinary Russian or Saudi for a year or two and most of them, at any rate, might revise some of their opinions.
Who do you consider to be a member of the 'open borders mob'?
I can't think of anyone on here suggesting such a thing.
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.
Exactly. If I am not paying for Lineker he can say what he likes.
He can say what he likes anyway because you are not funding him in his own time. Why do you think you are? Just like you and I can say what we like and just like all BBC people, we can all do the same. What is wrong with you and censorship?
The only restrictions are:
a) They can not say what they like in their BBC roles b) There are limits outside of their BBC roles just as there are with all of us if what we say is illegal or would be grounds for dismissal for bringing our employers into disrepute.
Why do you have these totalitarian views?
Why do you think it is ok for you to spout your views here, but it is not ok for Gary Lineker?
Why do you not want to fire all the other people who have done the same over the years eg Sugar, Neil, Meaden, Hislop, Clarkson, etc, etc?
you ought to write a thread on it.
I think its the reference how ever obliquely to nazis that's got people so pissed off about it.
a) Why would I do that when it has been talked to death here, with no mean contribution by yourself.
b) Most people aren't pissed off about Linekers post. In fact I wouldn't even have known it had happened if it wasn't raised by others. Only right wing nutters who want us all censored are upset by it.
On a more general note - What is wrong with you? 99% of your posts regardless of the subject are so bitter and your posts this morning calling me Mike were just bizarre. What on earth was that about?
Lighten up. Tell a joke or two here. Don't be negative about everything.
Are you this angry all the time? Get some joy in your life.
To be fair there are several posters who seem to be angry all the time, when a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit would be a good idea
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
We went through the numbers on this yesterday. MOTD is the most expensive programme the BBC produces, they pay £70.5m to the Premier League every year for the highlights rights, even before they’ve made the programme with those expensive presenters.
As a comparison, Eastenders, the BBC’s highest rated programme, costs £30m a year to make. Soap actors don’t get footballer or football pundit salaries, most of them earn high five figures.
And Eastenders will provide a heck of a lot more TV per year than MOTD...
It’s actually about the same. There’s also MOTD2, Football Focus, and Final Score. For 32 weeks or thereabouts. Eastenders is 3x30’ per week, 52 weeks a year.
I'd give you MOTD2; but the others aren't MOTD.
And a quick check showed that Eastenders if four times a week (though after my mistake yesterday, you might want to check that... )
The others are mentioned in the £70.5m figure that the BBC pays the Premier League, because they show highlights of the matches. I’d apportion the vast majority of the cost to the main MOTD programme though.
IIRC from yesterday, Eastenders goes out Tues, Weds and Thurs at 7pm. Not that I watch it.
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?
OK - but there are plenty of exceptions.
And I’d be here all night typing them, which is why I didn’t, allowing well educated and untelligent folk on pb to understand without labouring a point. But then I’m a scientist and not a lawyer…
Right. But some people (OK so not you) really do think there should be much greater freedom of speech if you're in the private sector.
Freedom of speech should never be absolute. We are in dangerous waters around offence, as opposed to things that society regards as illegal. I believe, within reason, it’s ok to write and say things that may offend some people. I do not believe in god, and regard all religions as ridiculous. Some may be offended by that. I believe that, with the exception of a small number of unfortunate people, the idea of being trans is probably not the best way to make people happy, but that’s my opinion, and others will disagree. I’d rather society woke up more to having less definition of men and women, and more tolerance of just being people.
Why the word 'unfortunate' in line 4? Neither necessary nor accurate.
That’s a fair point. I was thinking more about people like Caster Semanya, who clearly differ from the 99+% other the species. Not seeking to offend.
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.
Exactly. If I am not paying for Lineker he can say what he likes.
He can say what he likes anyway because you are not funding him in his own time. Why do you think you are? Just like you and I can say what we like and just like all BBC people, we can all do the same. What is wrong with you and censorship?
The only restrictions are:
a) They can not say what they like in their BBC roles b) There are limits outside of their BBC roles just as there are with all of us if what we say is illegal or would be grounds for dismissal for bringing our employers into disrepute.
Why do you have these totalitarian views?
Why do you think it is ok for you to spout your views here, but it is not ok for Gary Lineker?
Why do you not want to fire all the other people who have done the same over the years eg Sugar, Neil, Meaden, Hislop, Clarkson, etc, etc?
you ought to write a thread on it.
I think its the reference how ever obliquely to nazis that's got people so pissed off about it.
a) Why would I do that when it has been talked to death here, with no mean contribution by yourself.
b) Most people aren't pissed off about Linekers post. In fact I wouldn't even have known it had happened if it wasn't raised by others. Only right wing nutters who want us all censored are upset by it.
On a more general note - What is wrong with you? 99% of your posts regardless of the subject are so bitter and your posts this morning calling me Mike were just bizarre. What on earth was that about?
Lighten up. Tell a joke or two here. Don't be negative about everything.
Are you this angry all the time? Get some joy in your life.
To be fair there are several posters who seem to be angry all the time, when a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit would be a good idea
Nobody wants open borders. This is another nonsense invented by the right.
What we are saying is that the Tory policies are and will not work. They haven’t worked for 13 years so it is unlikely they’ll suddenly become competent on this issue.
I start from seeing these people as human beings. But then I’m a brainwashed twat apparently
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.
Lots of oppressed people in the world for sure. That's a sad fact.
I think that ultimately most people in the world have to tolerate some kind of oppression. That is why people want to live here, it isn't perfect, but it is better than other places.
What I find difficult to understand is why we are so hard on ourselves about the situation - this is my main objection to 'woke' thinking. I don't mind self criticism with the aim of progress, but a lot of people have an exaggerated negative perception of the UK, which I find naive and frustrating.
The open borders mob believe that the West is the planet's nexus of evil and responsible, through industrialisation and colonialism, for all its ills, so they are bound to hate it. For the more extreme Corbynite types, in particular, the ladder of oppression also comes into it, which is how they can so often be wilfully blind to the shortcomings of various of the world's despotisms. Being a friend of Hamas or a paid shill for Iran comes very easy when they are (a) enemies of the West and (b) various shades of Islamists occupy a higher rung on the ladder than, for example, gays who are strung up from cranes or thrown from the top of tall buildings.
They're also universalist: they think that absolutely everyone has the right to live wherever they like, and to harbour a belief to the contrary - i.e. to suggest that nationality still has some meaning, and that the state and the people might have some form of legitimate discretion as to whom is allowed to settle and whom is not - is a form of discrimination and therefore bigoted and racist.
Beyond that, it's simply a matter of lived experience. If you've spent all your life immersed in one flawed and imperfect culture, and convinced yourself that just about everyone in it and everything about it is terrible, then there's bound to be the tendency to idealise other parts of the world or, at least, not think about them all that much, which makes it easy to convince yourself that everywhere else is better. Invite all the people who think Britain is actual Hell to live the life of an ordinary Russian or Saudi for a year or two and most of them, at any rate, might revise some of their opinions.
The thing is, though, the "open borders mob" of which you write is a terribly small mob. In my raging leftie circles it barely features.
I'd wager it's a lot smaller than the "we don't want any immigrants at all, ever (unless they look like us)" mob.
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.
Exactly. If I am not paying for Lineker he can say what he likes.
He can say what he likes anyway because you are not funding him in his own time. Why do you think you are? Just like you and I can say what we like and just like all BBC people, we can all do the same. What is wrong with you and censorship?
The only restrictions are:
a) They can not say what they like in their BBC roles b) There are limits outside of their BBC roles just as there are with all of us if what we say is illegal or would be grounds for dismissal for bringing our employers into disrepute.
Why do you have these totalitarian views?
Why do you think it is ok for you to spout your views here, but it is not ok for Gary Lineker?
Why do you not want to fire all the other people who have done the same over the years eg Sugar, Neil, Meaden, Hislop, Clarkson, etc, etc?
you ought to write a thread on it.
I think its the reference how ever obliquely to nazis that's got people so pissed off about it.
a) Why would I do that when it has been talked to death here, with no mean contribution by yourself.
b) Most people aren't pissed off about Linekers post. In fact I wouldn't even have known it had happened if it wasn't raised by others. Only right wing nutters who want us all censored are upset by it.
On a more general note - What is wrong with you? 99% of your posts regardless of the subject are so bitter and your posts this morning calling me Mike were just bizarre. What on earth was that about?
Lighten up. Tell a joke or two here. Don't be negative about everything.
Are you this angry all the time? Get some joy in your life.
To be fair there are several posters who seem to be angry all the time, when a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit would be a good idea
When isn't it a good idea? Rich tea is awesome.
Rich tea biscuits are minging.
Give me a chocolate digestive or hob nob any day.
Big bag of crunchy Cheetos, with a can of cheap, very cold beer to wash 'em down the hatch.
Nobody wants open borders. This is another nonsense invented by the right.
What we are saying is that the Tory policies are and will not work. They haven’t worked for 13 years so it is unlikely they’ll suddenly become competent on this issue.
I start from seeing these people as human beings. But then I’m a brainwashed twat apparently
So what would be your suggestion, as to how we might stop dangerous small boat crossings from France to England?
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.
Exactly. If I am not paying for Lineker he can say what he likes.
He can say what he likes anyway because you are not funding him in his own time. Why do you think you are? Just like you and I can say what we like and just like all BBC people, we can all do the same. What is wrong with you and censorship?
The only restrictions are:
a) They can not say what they like in their BBC roles b) There are limits outside of their BBC roles just as there are with all of us if what we say is illegal or would be grounds for dismissal for bringing our employers into disrepute.
Why do you have these totalitarian views?
Why do you think it is ok for you to spout your views here, but it is not ok for Gary Lineker?
Why do you not want to fire all the other people who have done the same over the years eg Sugar, Neil, Meaden, Hislop, Clarkson, etc, etc?
you ought to write a thread on it.
I think its the reference how ever obliquely to nazis that's got people so pissed off about it.
a) Why would I do that when it has been talked to death here, with no mean contribution by yourself.
b) Most people aren't pissed off about Linekers post. In fact I wouldn't even have known it had happened if it wasn't raised by others. Only right wing nutters who want us all censored are upset by it.
On a more general note - What is wrong with you? 99% of your posts regardless of the subject are so bitter and your posts this morning calling me Mike were just bizarre. What on earth was that about?
Lighten up. Tell a joke or two here. Don't be negative about everything.
Are you this angry all the time? Get some joy in your life.
To be fair there are several posters who seem to be angry all the time, when a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit would be a good idea
@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?
Value for money at 1.3 million.. jeez
You might not think so. I might not think so. But funnily enough the people who matter and with the knowledge do, so tough.
Not sure I buy that. People who matter and had knowledge thought a lot of PPE deals were value for money in 2020.
a) If you are referring to the Govt they don't decide who presents MOTD
b) You may be right and the people who decide whether the presenters of MOTD are value for money might be useless, but they are almost certainly less useless than me and @squareroot2 as both of us, I assume, have f*** all knowledge on the subject.
Unlike @squareroot2 I don't pretend to have any knowledge in this area.
This lot had enough trouble deciding who was going to present the Budget.
I'm not sure the experiment of having frequently-changing guest Chancellors is working out.
Astonishing to think Jeremy Hunt will be only the second Chancellor out of the last five Chancellors to actually present a budget.
This government reminds me of 1930s Germany.
Weimar Germany with all its stability.
Not a good omen, given what followed the Weimar Republic.
Free speech: talking positively about Gary Lineker, who can say whatever he likes Not Free Speech: talking negatively about Gary Lineker, where you cannot say whatever you like
Gary Lineker cannot say what he likes. He cannot libel people (well he can but it might be expensive)
We can talk as negatively as we like about Gary Lineker again as long as we don't libel him.
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
We went through the numbers on this yesterday. MOTD is the most expensive programme the BBC produces, they pay £70.5m to the Premier League every year for the highlights rights, even before they’ve made the programme with those expensive presenters.
As a comparison, Eastenders, the BBC’s highest rated programme, costs £30m a year to make. Soap actors don’t get footballer or football pundit salaries, most of them earn high five figures.
And Eastenders will provide a heck of a lot more TV per year than MOTD...
It’s actually about the same. There’s also MOTD2, Football Focus, and Final Score. For 32 weeks or thereabouts. Eastenders is 3x30’ per week, 52 weeks a year.
I'd give you MOTD2; but the others aren't MOTD.
And a quick check showed that Eastenders if four times a week (though after my mistake yesterday, you might want to check that... )
The others are mentioned in the £70.5m figure that the BBC pays the Premier League, because they show highlights of the matches. I’d apportion the vast majority of the cost to the main MOTD programme though.
IIRC from yesterday, Eastenders goes out Tues, Weds and Thurs at 7pm. Not that I watch it.
I don't watch it, but I flicked the EPG on and it's on tomorrow.
Also: "From the week commencing on 7 March 2022, the show has been broadcast every weekday from Monday to Thursday in a 7:30 pm slot, making it the first time in the show's history that the programme will air permanently on Wednesdays."
If MOTD is so expensive, and gets so few viewers, it's an argument that it's hardly deserving of their most highly paid 'talent', is it?
Since it only get a few tens of thousands more viewers than Only Connect, pay Lineker et al a little more than Victoria Coren Mitchell. Although to be fair, if she was doing the MOTD punditry, I'd watch it.
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.
Exactly. If I am not paying for Lineker he can say what he likes.
He can say what he likes anyway because you are not funding him in his own time. Why do you think you are? Just like you and I can say what we like and just like all BBC people, we can all do the same. What is wrong with you and censorship?
The only restrictions are:
a) They can not say what they like in their BBC roles b) There are limits outside of their BBC roles just as there are with all of us if what we say is illegal or would be grounds for dismissal for bringing our employers into disrepute.
Why do you have these totalitarian views?
Why do you think it is ok for you to spout your views here, but it is not ok for Gary Lineker?
Why do you not want to fire all the other people who have done the same over the years eg Sugar, Neil, Meaden, Hislop, Clarkson, etc, etc?
you ought to write a thread on it.
I think its the reference how ever obliquely to nazis that's got people so pissed off about it.
a) Why would I do that when it has been talked to death here, with no mean contribution by yourself.
b) Most people aren't pissed off about Linekers post. In fact I wouldn't even have known it had happened if it wasn't raised by others. Only right wing nutters who want us all censored are upset by it.
On a more general note - What is wrong with you? 99% of your posts regardless of the subject are so bitter and your posts this morning calling me Mike were just bizarre. What on earth was that about?
Lighten up. Tell a joke or two here. Don't be negative about everything.
Are you this angry all the time? Get some joy in your life.
To be fair there are several posters who seem to be angry all the time, when a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit would be a good idea
BigG you are the model of a polite poster. We have had many discussions and mutual likes. It is a pleasure discussing stuff with you.
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
We went through the numbers on this yesterday. MOTD is the most expensive programme the BBC produces, they pay £70.5m to the Premier League every year for the highlights rights, even before they’ve made the programme with those expensive presenters.
As a comparison, Eastenders, the BBC’s highest rated programme, costs £30m a year to make. Soap actors don’t get footballer or football pundit salaries, most of them earn high five figures.
And Eastenders will provide a heck of a lot more TV per year than MOTD...
It’s actually about the same. There’s also MOTD2, Football Focus, and Final Score. For 32 weeks or thereabouts. Eastenders is 3x30’ per week, 52 weeks a year.
I'd give you MOTD2; but the others aren't MOTD.
And a quick check showed that Eastenders if four times a week (though after my mistake yesterday, you might want to check that... )
The others are mentioned in the £70.5m figure that the BBC pays the Premier League, because they show highlights of the matches. I’d apportion the vast majority of the cost to the main MOTD programme though.
IIRC from yesterday, Eastenders goes out Tues, Weds and Thurs at 7pm. Not that I watch it.
I don't watch it, but I flicked the EPG on and it's on tomorrow.
Also: "From the week commencing on 7 March 2022, the show has been broadcast every weekday from Monday to Thursday in a 7:30 pm slot, making it the first time in the show's history that the programme will air permanently on Wednesdays."
If MOTD is so expensive, and gets so few viewers, it's an argument that it's hardly deserving of their most highly paid 'talent', is it?
Since it only get a few tens of thousands more viewers than Only Connect, pay Lineker et al a little more than Victoria Coren Mitchell. Although to be fair, if she was doing the MOTD punditry, I'd watch it.
Vicky Coren is both very funny and easy on the eye. Give her the seven-figure salary to present the football show!
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
We went through the numbers on this yesterday. MOTD is the most expensive programme the BBC produces, they pay £70.5m to the Premier League every year for the highlights rights, even before they’ve made the programme with those expensive presenters.
As a comparison, Eastenders, the BBC’s highest rated programme, costs £30m a year to make. Soap actors don’t get footballer or football pundit salaries, most of them earn high five figures.
And Eastenders will provide a heck of a lot more TV per year than MOTD...
It’s actually about the same. There’s also MOTD2, Football Focus, and Final Score. For 32 weeks or thereabouts. Eastenders is 3x30’ per week, 52 weeks a year.
I remember the days when, with a handful of channels, the 'Test Card' (nothing to do with cricket) was on for much of the day. Now, that was seriously cheap. Bring it back, I say.
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
We went through the numbers on this yesterday. MOTD is the most expensive programme the BBC produces, they pay £70.5m to the Premier League every year for the highlights rights, even before they’ve made the programme with those expensive presenters.
As a comparison, Eastenders, the BBC’s highest rated programme, costs £30m a year to make. Soap actors don’t get footballer or football pundit salaries, most of them earn high five figures.
And Eastenders will provide a heck of a lot more TV per year than MOTD...
It’s actually about the same. There’s also MOTD2, Football Focus, and Final Score. For 32 weeks or thereabouts. Eastenders is 3x30’ per week, 52 weeks a year.
I'd give you MOTD2; but the others aren't MOTD.
And a quick check showed that Eastenders if four times a week (though after my mistake yesterday, you might want to check that... )
The others are mentioned in the £70.5m figure that the BBC pays the Premier League, because they show highlights of the matches. I’d apportion the vast majority of the cost to the main MOTD programme though.
IIRC from yesterday, Eastenders goes out Tues, Weds and Thurs at 7pm. Not that I watch it.
I don't watch it, but I flicked the EPG on and it's on tomorrow.
Also: "From the week commencing on 7 March 2022, the show has been broadcast every weekday from Monday to Thursday in a 7:30 pm slot, making it the first time in the show's history that the programme will air permanently on Wednesdays."
If MOTD is so expensive, and gets so few viewers, it's an argument that it's hardly deserving of their most highly paid 'talent', is it?
Since it only get a few tens of thousands more viewers than Only Connect, pay Lineker et al a little more than Victoria Coren Mitchell. Although to be fair, if she was doing the MOTD punditry, I'd watch it.
Vicky Coren is both very funny and easy on the eye. Give her the seven-figure salary to present the football show!
Have you ever read her book: "Once more, with feeling" ? If so, I recommend it...
Cancel culture: Gary Lineker should be suspended until social media guidelines can be agreed with him Not cancel culture: Tim Davie and Richard Sharp should lose their jobs for suspending Gary Lineker
Oddly they like Ukrainian immigrants now despite for years saying they were stealing our jobs.
The Ukranians are not economic migrants, they’re refugees fleeing a war. 90% women and children.
Young men are particularly represented in refugees fleeing war, as they are the principal targets of war. Either they are drafted by the government, or slaughtered by those governments, often for being the wrong religion or ethnic group.
It is why most are successful in their applications for Leave to Remain.
Free speech: talking positively about Gary Lineker, who can say whatever he likes Not Free Speech: talking negatively about Gary Lineker, where you cannot say whatever you like
Gary Lineker cannot say what he likes. He cannot libel people (well he can but it might be expensive)
We can talk as negatively as we like about Gary Lineker again as long as we don't libel him.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Gary Lineker can libel anyone he likes, because he's fucking minted. Anyone taking him on in a libel case would live to regret it.
Free speech: talking positively about Gary Lineker, who can say whatever he likes Not Free Speech: talking negatively about Gary Lineker, where you cannot say whatever you like
Gary Lineker cannot say what he likes. He cannot libel people (well he can but it might be expensive)
We can talk as negatively as we like about Gary Lineker again as long as we don't libel him.
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
We went through the numbers on this yesterday. MOTD is the most expensive programme the BBC produces, they pay £70.5m to the Premier League every year for the highlights rights, even before they’ve made the programme with those expensive presenters.
As a comparison, Eastenders, the BBC’s highest rated programme, costs £30m a year to make. Soap actors don’t get footballer or football pundit salaries, most of them earn high five figures.
Looked at another way, Lineker's pay is a pretty minor part of the cost of the show. In fact, If he and his mates are turning 20 minutes of football into an hour of Saturday night telly every week for, let's say £5 million, that still looks relatively cheap.
(And yes, soaps are a very efficient way of getting viewers per pound. That's why ITV does so much Emmerdale and Corrie each weeknight. Doesn't make it a good watch.)
Yes, his salary is a small part of the cost of the show. But he’s still right at the top of the list of people on the BBC payroll (or not, depending on how HMRC defines employment these days). He earns more than the DG and the chairman combined.
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
We went through the numbers on this yesterday. MOTD is the most expensive programme the BBC produces, they pay £70.5m to the Premier League every year for the highlights rights, even before they’ve made the programme with those expensive presenters.
As a comparison, Eastenders, the BBC’s highest rated programme, costs £30m a year to make. Soap actors don’t get footballer or football pundit salaries, most of them earn high five figures.
And Eastenders will provide a heck of a lot more TV per year than MOTD...
It’s actually about the same. There’s also MOTD2, Football Focus, and Final Score. For 32 weeks or thereabouts. Eastenders is 3x30’ per week, 52 weeks a year.
I remember the days when, with a handful of channels, the 'Test Card' (nothing to do with cricket) was on for much of the day. Now, that was seriously cheap. Bring it back, I say.
Unfortunately the Test Card's been taken off air:
When you actually look at the photo in the middle of the test card, it is really quite disturbing.
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
We went through the numbers on this yesterday. MOTD is the most expensive programme the BBC produces, they pay £70.5m to the Premier League every year for the highlights rights, even before they’ve made the programme with those expensive presenters.
As a comparison, Eastenders, the BBC’s highest rated programme, costs £30m a year to make. Soap actors don’t get footballer or football pundit salaries, most of them earn high five figures.
And Eastenders will provide a heck of a lot more TV per year than MOTD...
It’s actually about the same. There’s also MOTD2, Football Focus, and Final Score. For 32 weeks or thereabouts. Eastenders is 3x30’ per week, 52 weeks a year.
I'd give you MOTD2; but the others aren't MOTD.
And a quick check showed that Eastenders if four times a week (though after my mistake yesterday, you might want to check that... )
The others are mentioned in the £70.5m figure that the BBC pays the Premier League, because they show highlights of the matches. I’d apportion the vast majority of the cost to the main MOTD programme though.
IIRC from yesterday, Eastenders goes out Tues, Weds and Thurs at 7pm. Not that I watch it.
I don't watch it, but I flicked the EPG on and it's on tomorrow.
Also: "From the week commencing on 7 March 2022, the show has been broadcast every weekday from Monday to Thursday in a 7:30 pm slot, making it the first time in the show's history that the programme will air permanently on Wednesdays."
If MOTD is so expensive, and gets so few viewers, it's an argument that it's hardly deserving of their most highly paid 'talent', is it?
Since it only get a few tens of thousands more viewers than Only Connect, pay Lineker et al a little more than Victoria Coren Mitchell. Although to be fair, if she was doing the MOTD punditry, I'd watch it.
"Only Connect" produces a bit over a dozen hours of TV per year. No way does it come close to MOTD.
Maybe you could outline your best guess why Lineker gets so much money, that isn't "everyone in the BBC knows less about how to make TV than me".
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.
Exactly. If I am not paying for Lineker he can say what he likes.
He can say what he likes anyway because you are not funding him in his own time. Why do you think you are? Just like you and I can say what we like and just like all BBC people, we can all do the same. What is wrong with you and censorship?
The only restrictions are:
a) They can not say what they like in their BBC roles b) There are limits outside of their BBC roles just as there are with all of us if what we say is illegal or would be grounds for dismissal for bringing our employers into disrepute.
Why do you have these totalitarian views?
Why do you think it is ok for you to spout your views here, but it is not ok for Gary Lineker?
Why do you not want to fire all the other people who have done the same over the years eg Sugar, Neil, Meaden, Hislop, Clarkson, etc, etc?
you ought to write a thread on it.
I think its the reference how ever obliquely to nazis that's got people so pissed off about it.
a) Why would I do that when it has been talked to death here, with no mean contribution by yourself.
b) Most people aren't pissed off about Linekers post. In fact I wouldn't even have known it had happened if it wasn't raised by others. Only right wing nutters who want us all censored are upset by it.
On a more general note - What is wrong with you? 99% of your posts regardless of the subject are so bitter and your posts this morning calling me Mike were just bizarre. What on earth was that about?
Lighten up. Tell a joke or two here. Don't be negative about everything.
Are you this angry all the time? Get some joy in your life.
To be fair there are several posters who seem to be angry all the time, when a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit would be a good idea
Free speech: talking positively about Gary Lineker, who can say whatever he likes Not Free Speech: talking negatively about Gary Lineker, where you cannot say whatever you like
Gary Lineker cannot say what he likes. He cannot libel people (well he can but it might be expensive)
We can talk as negatively as we like about Gary Lineker again as long as we don't libel him.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Gary Lineker can libel anyone he likes, because he's fucking minted. Anyone taking him on in a libel case would live to regret it.
OGH OTOH...
Yes, sadly, it's effectively a privilege of wealth. It's why Gary Lineker and J K Rowling can do things mere mortals cannot.
If you were on £25k a year as a BBC staffer, or contractor, you'd be put back in your box very quickly for even a minor political comment.
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
We went through the numbers on this yesterday. MOTD is the most expensive programme the BBC produces, they pay £70.5m to the Premier League every year for the highlights rights, even before they’ve made the programme with those expensive presenters.
As a comparison, Eastenders, the BBC’s highest rated programme, costs £30m a year to make. Soap actors don’t get footballer or football pundit salaries, most of them earn high five figures.
And Eastenders will provide a heck of a lot more TV per year than MOTD...
It’s actually about the same. There’s also MOTD2, Football Focus, and Final Score. For 32 weeks or thereabouts. Eastenders is 3x30’ per week, 52 weeks a year.
I'd give you MOTD2; but the others aren't MOTD.
And a quick check showed that Eastenders if four times a week (though after my mistake yesterday, you might want to check that... )
The others are mentioned in the £70.5m figure that the BBC pays the Premier League, because they show highlights of the matches. I’d apportion the vast majority of the cost to the main MOTD programme though.
IIRC from yesterday, Eastenders goes out Tues, Weds and Thurs at 7pm. Not that I watch it.
I don't watch it, but I flicked the EPG on and it's on tomorrow.
Also: "From the week commencing on 7 March 2022, the show has been broadcast every weekday from Monday to Thursday in a 7:30 pm slot, making it the first time in the show's history that the programme will air permanently on Wednesdays."
If MOTD is so expensive, and gets so few viewers, it's an argument that it's hardly deserving of their most highly paid 'talent', is it?
Since it only get a few tens of thousands more viewers than Only Connect, pay Lineker et al a little more than Victoria Coren Mitchell. Although to be fair, if she was doing the MOTD punditry, I'd watch it.
Excuse my ignorance, but how are viewing figures calculated? If 3m watch MotD, does that mean they watch it at 10.30 on Saturday night? I ask because I (and I'm sure I'm not alone) tend to watch it on iplayer sometime on Sunday. Am I part of the 3m?
@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.
Sure, in two years time. In the meantime Lineker can tell the BBC management to fuck right off. The BBC has a today problem that management doesn't seem to have thought through. Either they can let him back or he will take them to the cleaners and they won't have a presenter for MotD. It's not clear to me that the first is the more embarrassing outcome for the BBC.
Motd without a presenter ...that saves 4 million. Over 3 years...Pundits .. 4million.. what's not to like...
We went through the numbers on this yesterday. MOTD is the most expensive programme the BBC produces, they pay £70.5m to the Premier League every year for the highlights rights, even before they’ve made the programme with those expensive presenters.
As a comparison, Eastenders, the BBC’s highest rated programme, costs £30m a year to make. Soap actors don’t get footballer or football pundit salaries, most of them earn high five figures.
And Eastenders will provide a heck of a lot more TV per year than MOTD...
It’s actually about the same. There’s also MOTD2, Football Focus, and Final Score. For 32 weeks or thereabouts. Eastenders is 3x30’ per week, 52 weeks a year.
I remember the days when, with a handful of channels, the 'Test Card' (nothing to do with cricket) was on for much of the day. Now, that was seriously cheap. Bring it back, I say.
Unfortunately the Test Card's been taken off air:
When you actually look at the photo in the middle of the test card, it is really quite disturbing.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022-2023_Ukrainian_refugee_crisis
The only restrictions are:
a) They can not say what they like in their BBC roles
b) There are limits outside of their BBC roles just as there are with all of us if what we say is illegal or would be grounds for dismissal for bringing our employers into disrepute.
Why do you have these totalitarian views?
Why do you think it is ok for you to spout your views here, but it is not ok for Gary Lineker?
Why do you not want to fire all the other people who have done the same over the years eg Sugar, Neil, Meaden, Hislop, Clarkson, etc, etc?
Why do you think @SeanT regenerates?
Now *this* a vision - https://youtu.be/LjogCytzX0s
Mike Pence slams 'reckless' Donald Trump over US Capitol riots
Former vice president says Trump's words 'endangered my family' after some January 6 rioters called for him to be hanged
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/12/mike-pence-slams-reckless-donald-trump-us-capitol-riots/?utm_content=telegraph&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1678629403-1
But then I’m a scientist and not a lawyer…
I think its the reference how ever obliquely to nazis that's got people so pissed off about it.
This issue was highlighted by Macron in his summit with Sunak and needs a Europe wide solution
I would say for our family who have lost close relatives at sea, it is even more distressing as often they are not recovered
May they all RIP
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/12/boat-vessel-missing-mediterranean-libya-italy?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/library-document/situation-refugees-ukraine_en
Czech Republic had taken 390k refugees as of the middle of 2022
44% Women
36% Children
So 80% women and children.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xki81z
b) Most people aren't pissed off about Linekers post. In fact I wouldn't even have known it had happened if it wasn't raised by others. Only right wing nutters who want us all censored are upset by it.
On a more general note - What is wrong with you? 99% of your posts regardless of the subject are so bitter and your posts this morning calling me Mike were just bizarre. What on earth was that about?
Lighten up. Tell a joke or two here. Don't be negative about everything.
Are you this angry all the time? Get some joy in your life.
Give them a B- in the contact review?
If you're worried about what happens when one midsized regional bank doesn't repay its depositors, wait till you find out what happens if House Republicans force the government of the United States to default on its massive worldwide multi-trillion dollar obligations
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1635001527365677057
What I find difficult to understand is why we are so hard on ourselves about the situation - this is my main objection to 'woke' thinking. I don't mind self criticism with the aim of progress, but a lot of people have an exaggerated negative perception of the UK, which I find naive and frustrating.
b) You may be right and the people who decide whether the presenters of MOTD are value for money might be useless, but they are almost certainly less useless than me and @squareroot2 as both of us, I assume, have f*** all knowledge on the subject.
Unlike @squareroot2 I don't pretend to have any knowledge in this area.
Pence has less future in the GOP (Grifters on Parade) than Liz Cheney. Regardless of POTUS nominee, which will NEVER be him.
This latest "news' flash having zero impact on that fact.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Power is curiously bowdlerised. When General Le May says that you are little bit too keen on war…
b) If I am on your case for the majority of your posts it is because you are being a very angry pillock so you qualify for getting criticism on both counts, in particular the very angry stuff. It is not as if it is because you have fallen out with someone here (we all do that), but you come in angry on everything from post one. And there is no humour at all. None. You come over as a very angry man, which is very sad.
As a comparison, Eastenders, the BBC’s highest rated programme, costs £30m a year to make. Soap actors don’t get footballer or football pundit salaries, most of them earn high five figures.
This government reminds me of 1930s Germany.
Weimar Germany with all its stability.
Thank you
That's it for now see you all.in a week. I am on holiday.
They're also universalist: they think that absolutely everyone has the right to live wherever they like, and to harbour a belief to the contrary - i.e. to suggest that nationality still has some meaning, and that the state and the people might have some form of legitimate discretion as to whom is allowed to settle and whom is not - is a form of discrimination and therefore bigoted and racist.
Beyond that, it's simply a matter of lived experience. If you've spent all your life immersed in one flawed and imperfect culture, and convinced yourself that just about everyone in it and everything about it is terrible, then there's bound to be the tendency to idealise other parts of the world or, at least, not think about them all that much, which makes it easy to convince yourself that everywhere else is better. Invite all the people who think Britain is actual Hell to live the life of an ordinary Russian or Saudi for a year or two and most of them, at any rate, might revise some of their opinions.
(And yes, soaps are a very efficient way of getting viewers per pound. That's why ITV does so much Emmerdale and Corrie each weeknight. Doesn't make it a good watch.)
And a quick check showed that Eastenders if four times a week (though after my mistake yesterday, you might want to check that...
Not Free Speech: talking negatively about Gary Lineker, where you cannot say whatever you like
Now, that was seriously cheap. Bring it back, I say.
I can't think of anyone on here suggesting such a thing.
Give me a chocolate digestive or hob nob any day.
AND have not heard much push-back on that front. Indeed, all the hollering about GL's comments from the right, has tended to reinforce the notion.
Is that what really happened? And if so, who were/are key players in this opera bouffe in & around the government?
IIRC from yesterday, Eastenders goes out Tues, Weds and Thurs at 7pm. Not that I watch it.
What we are saying is that the Tory policies are and will not work. They haven’t worked for 13 years so it is unlikely they’ll suddenly become competent on this issue.
I start from seeing these people as human beings. But then I’m a brainwashed twat apparently
I'd wager it's a lot smaller than the "we don't want any immigrants at all, ever (unless they look like us)" mob.
Just watch out for the orange fingers . . .
They didn’t like illegal immigrants.
Oddly they like Ukrainian immigrants now despite for years saying they were stealing our jobs.
...
oh.
We can talk as negatively as we like about Gary Lineker again as long as we don't libel him.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Also: "From the week commencing on 7 March 2022, the show has been broadcast every weekday from Monday to Thursday in a 7:30 pm slot, making it the first time in the show's history that the programme will air permanently on Wednesdays."
If MOTD is so expensive, and gets so few viewers, it's an argument that it's hardly deserving of their most highly paid 'talent', is it?
Since it only get a few tens of thousands more viewers than Only Connect, pay Lineker et al a little more than Victoria Coren Mitchell. Although to be fair, if she was doing the MOTD punditry, I'd watch it.
https://twitter.com/ABridgen/status/1634861570957225984
Not cancel culture: Tim Davie and Richard Sharp should lose their jobs for suspending Gary Lineker
It is why most are successful in their applications for Leave to Remain.
OGH OTOH...
Maybe you could outline your best guess why Lineker gets so much money, that isn't "everyone in the BBC knows less about how to make TV than me".
If you were on £25k a year as a BBC staffer, or contractor, you'd be put back in your box very quickly for even a minor political comment.