@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...
That was the book about her and a friend trying to make an ‘adult movie’? I’ve not read it, but have heard her talking about it on various podcasts.
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.
Abernethy. Plain chocolate rich tea. Liebniz. You can keep your hob nobs. Edited because I cannae spell!
@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?
Nobody wants open borders. This is another nonsense invented by the right.
I want open borders. Borders are a nationalist restriction on liberty. Well, okay, maybe I don't want open borders, maybe I just want done with borders entirely.
Remember, it's "Workers of the World Unite"
Nationalist division is an aid to the ruling class.
You've made a defamatory comment about Gary Lineker, not acceptable.
Don't you believe in free speech?
I do, but in this instance that particular bit of free speech would have been very expensive for OGH.
Do you agree that particular bit of free speech Gary Lineker did would have been very expensive for the BBC?
You'll have to show your workings for that one.
If the BBC hadn't taken any action then they'd also have been politicised by the row. That could have proved very costly in maintaining broad bi-partisan support for itself and the ongoing justification of its licence fee.
They were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. Lineker put them in that position.
It's why I think his suspension was justified, and it's employment not a free speech issue.
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
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
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
@Independent reports that the "BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract"
And would likely lose any legal claim.
But when his contract ends you tell him to fuck right off.
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:
Is THAT young Vicky Coren and her friend? My God, no wonder people are upset!
If he makes Dick Sharp's immediate resignation without compensation as a quid pro quo for deleting his tweet and apologising a condition of returning I think everyone will be happy.
@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?
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
@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:
Is THAT young Vicky Coren and her friend? My God, no wonder people are upset!
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?
Can I have a go?
The way to stop this is remove the draw that the black economy modern slavery system provides.
Ideas to support that: citizenship route for grassing on illegal employers, ID cards, random checks on at-risk businesses such as car washes, nail bars etc., proper resources for processing and keeping tabs on asylum-seekers, require those awaiting processing to work and thus to pay for their keep, push for a comprehensive EU-wide agreement on how to handle immigration from outside Europe (would require us to rejoin the EU, so that's a win-win), legalise, tax and regulate recreational drugs to attack the drug gangs black economy...
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.
No you wouldn't for the prime reason nobody would know not care. Nobody gives a toss what a £25k staffer says on twitter with their 12 followers. They only would if it brought the BBC into disrepute.
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
A lot of us, well me anyway, don’t have any friends IRL and so you get all of our social indicators on here. I am, as Malc doesn’t tire of telling me, a loser. So people on a random message board get all of my many and varied faults and inadequacies. My only friend was a dog who died three months ago. He was pretty chill regarding my issues.
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
No he said it was similar to 1930s Germany.
And his contract allows him to do so - because he chats about sport rather than news unlike say Andrew Neil who said similar things while fronting the BBC’s politics programs
It’s worth saying that your love of free speech only extends to people with views identical to your own.
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?
He isn't free to say what he likes. He's acting within his contract.
*always check the contract and the wording*
So he doesn't have freedom of speech (except on football, where he says fuck all), whereas the post I was responding to suggested he does/should?
He doesn't have freedom of speech in the areas dictated by his contract. aka football. Elsewhere, not a problem.
No limit to what the idiot can say outside of football?
Without being fired?
His contract will have limits on it - I suspect there will be an "actions bringing the BBC into disrepute" clause.
But you know what - there's a lot of case law on this, and the bar is a very high one for prevailing in court.
@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".
One thing about MOTD is that they have to script the show in a few hours between the final whistle and the show starting, including picking highlights worthy of discussion in a half dozen games, and planning a show around the analysis. It is a very time pressured rehearsal and production schedule.
Nobody wants open borders. This is another nonsense invented by the right.
I would dispute that a little. It is at the very least implied that that is what some people want when they emphasise being very loose with borders on the basis of things like 'wouldn't you want to do what they are doing?' etc.
There's nothing wrong with that position in itself (I'm far more liberal on migration than most of the public), but if someone is saying we should let people in because of course they want to come because things are very tough when they come from, and in particular if they criticise any border restriction activity in practice, open borders kind of logically follows. If its wrong to exclude economic migrants and wrong to have firm measures in place, then totally open borders is the end point.
That's why people like Keir have to make such a big deal about not wanting totally open borders - because some of the arguments people use do imply that.
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?
Can I have a go?
The way to stop this is remove the draw that the black economy modern slavery system provides.
Ideas to support that: citizenship route for grassing on illegal employers, ID cards, random checks on at-risk businesses such as car washes, nail bars etc., proper resources for processing and keeping tabs on asylum-seekers, require those awaiting processing to work and thus to pay for their keep, push for a comprehensive EU-wide agreement on how to handle immigration from outside Europe (would require us to rejoin the EU, so that's a win-win)...
Simpler - £100k fine per employee illegally employed. Directors personally liable. Employee who gives evidence gets half, tax free
Plus indefinite leave to remain.
Every ambulance chasing law firm will become a prosecutor. Every migrant an inspector. All for free.
@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...
It doesn't. My point. The BBC can either pay Lineker lots of money to present the programme or pay him even more not to. If it's the second they will still need to find a presenter who probably won't be as good, as they realise themselves.
Moving on. I am not a big watcher of Match of the Day but it strikes me there's a lot of curation behind the presentation and analysis. Is that Lineker's job, as well as fronting the programme, or does he trot out lines prepared for him by an army of anonymous producers?
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
No he said it was similar to 1930s Germany.
And his contract allows him to do so - because he chats about sport rather than news unlike say Andrew Neil who said similar things while fronting the BBC’s politics programs
It’s worth saying that your love of free speech only extends to people with views identical to your own.
It's absolutely fascinating that no matter how many times this comes up, and no matter how many times I make my views clear, the same lines and contorted logic keeps being trotted out regardless.
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
First of all - no he didn't. He said the language used was reminiscent of the Nazis. Which may be an exaggeration but given the increasingly authoritarian and xenophobic behaviour of Braverman in particular can hardly be said to be utterly outrageous. Clamping down on protests, attacking the press, demonising 'otherness' and routine flouting of the law as Braverman has done were all things the Nazis did. True, she has not gone nearly so far as they did, but she is going much too far for a fully democratic system to be healthy.
Under the guidelines as explained by the corporation's own former officer, a sports presenter on a freelance contract making comments, including political comments on a non-BBC platform is not considered to be a breach of impartiality.
Therefore, ironically, in reacting as they did and taking him off air for his political views, the BBC have - in fact - not acted with political impartiality.
They have also broken his contract, breached their own rules, wrecked their programme schedules, caused the whole tweet to dominate several news cycles and made themselves a national laughing stock.
This is not an employment issue. It is not even a free speech issue. It is an example of How To Look Incredibly Thick and Politically Biased.
If they had just quietly said to Lineker 'dial it down please, we're getting complaints' the whole stupid mess could have been avoided.
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.
There is the open borders mob who, whilst being insignificant in the general population, certainly exist on the left - I have encountered them many times.
But then there are also people who claim to be pro migration on compassionate grounds, but who cannot clearly explain what they think the upper limit of people coming in to the UK should be, nor what the criteria should be for letting them in.
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.
Czech Republic had taken 390k refugees as of the middle of 2022
44% Women 36% Children
So 80% women and children.
Right. So what about the other 20%, or 78000 refugees?
I wish I could find the reference but I remember I wrote an undergraduate essay where i cited an estimation that around a quarter of Canterbury’s residents at one point in the early 17th Century were Huganot refugees. I may be misremembering 25% but it was a substantial number.
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?
Can I have a go?
The way to stop this is remove the draw that the black economy modern slavery system provides.
Ideas to support that: citizenship route for grassing on illegal employers, ID cards, random checks on at-risk businesses such as car washes, nail bars etc., proper resources for processing and keeping tabs on asylum-seekers, require those awaiting processing to work and thus to pay for their keep, push for a comprehensive EU-wide agreement on how to handle immigration from outside Europe (would require us to rejoin the EU, so that's a win-win), legalise, tax and regulate recreational drugs to attack the drug gangs black economy...
I could go on.
I will agree with bits of that, and disagree with bits of that, but at least you have ideas. Many of those critising the government don’t have ideas. The EU has a scheme, an agreement with Libya to keep refugees in Africa rather than Europe, which many liberals would say is close to slavery.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which was an equally stupid comment. But that is not the point. People should be allowed to make stupid comments without fear of their personal comments being used to push them out of their jobs.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
The highest paid BBC employee can say/tweet whatever he likes?
That's a strange rule for a state broadcaster
What if he did want to foment rebellion?
He isn't free to say what he likes. He's acting within his contract.
*always check the contract and the wording*
So he doesn't have freedom of speech (except on football, where he says fuck all), whereas the post I was responding to suggested he does/should?
He doesn't have freedom of speech in the areas dictated by his contract. aka football. Elsewhere, not a problem.
No limit to what the idiot can say outside of football?
Without being fired?
His contract will have limits on it - I suspect there will be an "actions bringing the BBC into disrepute" clause.
But you know what - there's a lot of case law on this, and the bar is a very high one for prevailing in court.
Erm…no. In unfair dismissal it is, breach of contract not so much. Lineker is not an employee so can’t claim unfair dismissal
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?
He isn't free to say what he likes. He's acting within his contract.
*always check the contract and the wording*
So he doesn't have freedom of speech (except on football, where he says fuck all), whereas the post I was responding to suggested he does/should?
He doesn't have freedom of speech in the areas dictated by his contract. aka football. Elsewhere, not a problem.
No limit to what the idiot can say outside of football?
Without being fired?
His contract will have limits on it - I suspect there will be an "actions bringing the BBC into disrepute" clause.
But you know what - there's a lot of case law on this, and the bar is a very high one for prevailing in court.
Where the BBC do need to tighten up a bit, in my view, is on the guidelines for impartiality for employees/disguised employees who aren't directly involved in news, talk show or current affairs output.
Such employees are still able to damage the brand and its reputation for impartiality but it's not entirely clear what the boundaries are, except that what Lineker said was so wild it would clearly cross them wherever they were.
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?
Can I have a go?
The way to stop this is remove the draw that the black economy modern slavery system provides.
Ideas to support that: citizenship route for grassing on illegal employers, ID cards, random checks on at-risk businesses such as car washes, nail bars etc., proper resources for processing and keeping tabs on asylum-seekers, require those awaiting processing to work and thus to pay for their keep, push for a comprehensive EU-wide agreement on how to handle immigration from outside Europe (would require us to rejoin the EU, so that's a win-win)...
Simpler - £100k fine per employee illegally employed. Directors personally liable. Employee who gives evidence gets half, tax free
Plus indefinite leave to remain.
Every ambulance chasing law firm will become a prosecutor. Every migrant an inspector. All for free.
Yes, that's better. Why can't either HMG of the opposition parties pursue these or similar ideas?
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
First of all - no he didn't. He said the language used was reminiscent of the Nazis. Which may be an exaggeration but given the increasingly authoritarian and xenophobic behaviour of Braverman in particular can hardly be said to be utterly outrageous. Clamping down on protests, attacking the press, demonising 'otherness' and routine flouting of the law as Braverman has done were all things the Nazis did. True, she has not gone nearly so far as they did, but she is going much too far for a fully democratic system to be healthy.
Under the guidelines as explained by the corporation's own former officer, a sports presenter on a freelance contract making comments, including political comments on a non-BBC platform is not considered to be a breach of impartiality.
Therefore, ironically, in reacting as they did and taking him off air for his political views, the BBC have - in fact - not acted with political impartiality.
They have also broken his contract, breached their own rules, wrecked their programme schedules, caused the whole tweet to dominate several news cycles and made themselves a national laughing stock.
This is not an employment issue. It is not even a free speech issue. It is an example of How To Look Incredibly Thick and Politically Biased.
If they had just quietly said to Lineker 'dial it down please, we're getting complaints' the whole stupid mess could have been avoided.
The problem with this argument is that plenty of your fellow travellers, including @RochdalePioneers, say it absolutely was a comparion to the Nazis and rightly so.
It insults all our intelligence to pretend it wasn't. So let's move on from this shall we.
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
Pending any details of his particular contract I don't think there can be much complaint that saying a policy (or more precisely language directed at people affected by the policy) is Nazi like crosses the line for BBC employees. If it was purely about employees being restricted in their speech why was there not a whole lot more outrage before now? It's not as though people were not aware BBC employees are not completely free to spout off opinions.
The issue is more about the workability of and support for that longstanding policy, which is clearly fraying as people just don't really give a crap whether football presenters get political, off air. It's in the rules, he may have agreed to it, but as we can see if people do not play ball it's a PR nightmare.
They were in a bind (ydotheur's suggestion of telling him to dial it down was not workable, since he clearly won't stop with his opinions as he's had less severe reactions before), and decided to play it tough. That was probably a mistake as I don't think it's a fight they can win, not outright.
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
A lot of us, well me anyway, don’t have any friends IRL and so you get all of our social indicators on here. I am, as Malc doesn’t tire of telling me, a loser. So people on a random message board get all of my many and varied faults and inadequacies. My only friend was a dog who died three months ago. He was pretty chill regarding my issues.
What was his opinion on PR/Scottish Independence/Brexit/Radiohead etc?
Seriously, sorry to hear that, and I hope you can take solace from randoms on PB, who, for the most part, are decent folk.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which was an equally stupid comment. But that is not the point. People should be allowed to make stupid comments without fear of their personal comments being used to push them out of their jobs.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
The highest paid BBC employee can say/tweet whatever he likes?
That's a strange rule for a state broadcaster
What if he did want to foment rebellion?
He isn't free to say what he likes. He's acting within his contract.
*always check the contract and the wording*
So he doesn't have freedom of speech (except on football, where he says fuck all), whereas the post I was responding to suggested he does/should?
He doesn't have freedom of speech in the areas dictated by his contract. aka football. Elsewhere, not a problem.
No limit to what the idiot can say outside of football?
Without being fired?
His contract will have limits on it - I suspect there will be an "actions bringing the BBC into disrepute" clause.
But you know what - there's a lot of case law on this, and the bar is a very high one for prevailing in court.
Erm…no. In unfair dismissal it is, breach of contract not so much. Lineker is not an employee so can’t claim unfair dismissal
It is when your employer let you make similar comments in November about a very similar issue albeit a different country.
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
No he said it was similar to 1930s Germany.
And his contract allows him to do so - because he chats about sport rather than news unlike say Andrew Neil who said similar things while fronting the BBC’s politics programs
It’s worth saying that your love of free speech only extends to people with views identical to your own.
It's absolutely fascinating that no matter how many times this comes up, and no matter how many times I make my views clear, the same lines and contorted logic keeps being trotted out regardless.
It's very boring.
It’s boring that you are all for free speech provided it reflects your views but anti it when you don’t like the views being presented.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which was an equally stupid comment. But that is not the point. People should be allowed to make stupid comments without fear of their personal comments being used to push them out of their jobs.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
The highest paid BBC employee can say/tweet whatever he likes?
That's a strange rule for a state broadcaster
What if he did want to foment rebellion?
He isn't free to say what he likes. He's acting within his contract.
*always check the contract and the wording*
So he doesn't have freedom of speech (except on football, where he says fuck all), whereas the post I was responding to suggested he does/should?
He doesn't have freedom of speech in the areas dictated by his contract. aka football. Elsewhere, not a problem.
No limit to what the idiot can say outside of football?
Without being fired?
His contract will have limits on it - I suspect there will be an "actions bringing the BBC into disrepute" clause.
But you know what - there's a lot of case law on this, and the bar is a very high one for prevailing in court.
Erm…no. In unfair dismissal it is, breach of contract not so much. Lineker is not an employee so can’t claim unfair dismissal
It is when your employer let you make similar comments in November about a very similar issue albeit a different 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.
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.
Czech Republic had taken 390k refugees as of the middle of 2022
44% Women 36% Children
So 80% women and children.
Right. So what about the other 20%, or 78000 refugees?
One can hazard a guess that they are men.
But probably mainly men over 60 or with disabilities / long-term health problems.
No doubt a few who ought to have stayed under the rules have fled too (think Ukrainian Leons). Always astonishes me that people sometimes break the rules.
Casino - for the umpteenth time he did not compare the POLICY to Nazi Germany. He compared the LANGUAGE being used to describe the migrants (to 1930s Germany). I think that is fair enough. The question whether BBC employees, or the highest profile ones, should be able to air personal opinions is the difficult part.
Casino - for the umpteenth time he did not compare the POLICY to Nazi Germany. He compared the LANGUAGE being used to describe the migrants (to 1930s Germany). I think that is fair enough. The question whether BBC employees, or the highest profile ones, should be able to air personal opinions is the difficult part.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which was an equally stupid comment. But that is not the point. People should be allowed to make stupid comments without fear of their personal comments being used to push them out of their jobs.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
The highest paid BBC employee can say/tweet whatever he likes?
That's a strange rule for a state broadcaster
What if he did want to foment rebellion?
He isn't free to say what he likes. He's acting within his contract.
*always check the contract and the wording*
So he doesn't have freedom of speech (except on football, where he says fuck all), whereas the post I was responding to suggested he does/should?
He doesn't have freedom of speech in the areas dictated by his contract. aka football. Elsewhere, not a problem.
No limit to what the idiot can say outside of football?
Without being fired?
His contract will have limits on it - I suspect there will be an "actions bringing the BBC into disrepute" clause.
But you know what - there's a lot of case law on this, and the bar is a very high one for prevailing in court.
Erm…no. In unfair dismissal it is, breach of contract not so much. Lineker is not an employee so can’t claim unfair dismissal
It is when your employer let you make similar comments in November about a very similar issue albeit a different country.
Eh?
The BBC let Gary make similar comments regarding Qatar and how the stadiums were built.
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
Strictly speaking, Tim Davie should consider his position on grounds of gross incompetence, which happened to involve suspending Gary Lineker. Richard Sharp, who is otherwise well qualified for the post, should never have been hired in the first place due to conflicts of interest that plausibly could be investigated under the Bribery Act.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which was an equally stupid comment. But that is not the point. People should be allowed to make stupid comments without fear of their personal comments being used to push them out of their jobs.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
The highest paid BBC employee can say/tweet whatever he likes?
That's a strange rule for a state broadcaster
What if he did want to foment rebellion?
He isn't free to say what he likes. He's acting within his contract.
*always check the contract and the wording*
So he doesn't have freedom of speech (except on football, where he says fuck all), whereas the post I was responding to suggested he does/should?
He doesn't have freedom of speech in the areas dictated by his contract. aka football. Elsewhere, not a problem.
No limit to what the idiot can say outside of football?
Without being fired?
His contract will have limits on it - I suspect there will be an "actions bringing the BBC into disrepute" clause.
But you know what - there's a lot of case law on this, and the bar is a very high one for prevailing in court.
Erm…no. In unfair dismissal it is, breach of contract not so much. Lineker is not an employee so can’t claim unfair dismissal
It is when your employer let you make similar comments in November about a very similar issue albeit a different country.
Archy was born in Wales. I think he was a PC supporter but socially very conservative. A canine Welsh Malc. I remember when he was a pup we lived in Greenwich and he angrily tore up UKIP material as it was posed through the door but we found Conservative Party literature under his cushion when we were cleaning his basket.
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
Pending any details of his particular contract I don't think there can be much complaint that saying a policy (or language directed at people affected by the policy) is Nazi like crosses the line for BBC employees. If it was purely about employees being restricted in their speech why was there not a whole lot more outrage before now? It's not as though people were not aware BBC employees are not completely free to spout off opinions.
The issue is more about the workability of and support for that longstanding policy, which is clearly fraying as people just don't really give a crap whether football presenters get political, off air. It's in the rules, he may have agreed to it, but as we can see if people do not play ball it's a PR nightmare.
They were in a bind (ydotheur's suggestion of telling him to dial it down was not workable, since he clearly won't stop with his opinions as he's had less severe reactions before), and decided to play it tough. That was probably a mistake as I don't think it's a fight they can win, not outright.
A compounding factor is that, when Lineker’s contract was renewed, the accompanying press release made specific reference to clauses in his new contract regarding social media use. They have to be seen to do something, even if it appears the contract is wooly enough to let him compare the government to Nazis on Twitter.
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?
He isn't free to say what he likes. He's acting within his contract.
*always check the contract and the wording*
So he doesn't have freedom of speech (except on football, where he says fuck all), whereas the post I was responding to suggested he does/should?
He doesn't have freedom of speech in the areas dictated by his contract. aka football. Elsewhere, not a problem.
No limit to what the idiot can say outside of football?
Without being fired?
His contract will have limits on it - I suspect there will be an "actions bringing the BBC into disrepute" clause.
But you know what - there's a lot of case law on this, and the bar is a very high one for prevailing in court.
Erm…no. In unfair dismissal it is, breach of contract not so much. Lineker is not an employee so can’t claim unfair dismissal
It is when your employer let you make similar comments in November about a very similar issue albeit a different country.
Eh?
The BBC let Gary make similar comments regarding Qatar and how the stadiums were built.
@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".
I've no idea why he gets so much money. It certainly isn't ratings-based, is 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.
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
First of all - no he didn't. He said the language used was reminiscent of the Nazis. Which may be an exaggeration but given the increasingly authoritarian and xenophobic behaviour of Braverman in particular can hardly be said to be utterly outrageous. Clamping down on protests, attacking the press, demonising 'otherness' and routine flouting of the law as Braverman has done were all things the Nazis did. True, she has not gone nearly so far as they did, but she is going much too far for a fully democratic system to be healthy.
Under the guidelines as explained by the corporation's own former officer, a sports presenter on a freelance contract making comments, including political comments on a non-BBC platform is not considered to be a breach of impartiality.
Therefore, ironically, in reacting as they did and taking him off air for his political views, the BBC have - in fact - not acted with political impartiality.
They have also broken his contract, breached their own rules, wrecked their programme schedules, caused the whole tweet to dominate several news cycles and made themselves a national laughing stock.
This is not an employment issue. It is not even a free speech issue. It is an example of How To Look Incredibly Thick and Politically Biased.
If they had just quietly said to Lineker 'dial it down please, we're getting complaints' the whole stupid mess could have been avoided.
The problem with this argument is that plenty of your fellow travellers, including @RochdalePioneers, say it absolutely was a comparion to the Nazis and rightly so.
It insults all our intelligence to pretend it wasn't. So let's move on from this shall we.
I did say that it was.
Honestly, if you can't even read my posts I don't think you're in a position to grumble about people insulting your intelligence!
And you might at least have tried to engage with the substance.
Edit - I think your problem is you're getting confused in your own mind. He said the language used was reminiscent of the Nazis. You seem to think he said the policy was.
Lack of sleep, perhaps? I know things are a bit tough for you right now.
Casino - for the umpteenth time he did not compare the POLICY to Nazi Germany. He compared the LANGUAGE being used to describe the migrants (to 1930s Germany). I think that is fair enough. The question whether BBC employees, or the highest profile ones, should be able to air personal opinions is the difficult part.
The anti free speech brigade just lie. It is pointless arguing with these people
People fleeing Afghanistan or Iraq aren’t economic migrants either. They’re fleeing a war.
Could it perhaps be because they’re not white? Surely not
Most people have no issue with people fleeing Afghanistan, but I don’t think Iraq is at war? There is also a huge issue right now with Albanians, fleeing a safe European nation.
I dont doubt that racism is part of the issue. Sadly it’s part of human nature to be more comfortable with people more like you. Blond, white Ukrainians will always be less threatening than dark skinned Afgannies.
None of that changes the issue of how you save lives by stopping small boat crossings, which is what this farago is about.
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.
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.
Czech Republic had taken 390k refugees as of the middle of 2022
44% Women 36% Children
So 80% women and children.
Right. So what about the other 20%, or 78000 refugees?
I wish I could find the reference but I remember I wrote an undergraduate essay where i cited an estimation that around a quarter of Canterbury’s residents at one point in the early 17th Century were Huganot refugees. I may be misremembering 25% but it was a substantial number.
Don't get TSE started! We've had more than enough intemperate venting already, for one PB thread!
Casino - for the umpteenth time he did not compare the POLICY to Nazi Germany. He compared the LANGUAGE being used to describe the migrants (to 1930s Germany). I think that is fair enough. The question whether BBC employees, or the highest profile ones, should be able to air personal opinions is the difficult part.
The anti free speech brigade just lie. It is pointless arguing with these people
You’re looking forward to Jeremy Clarkson presenting the next series of Who Wants to be a Millionaire?
Casino - for the umpteenth time he did not compare the POLICY to Nazi Germany. He compared the LANGUAGE being used to describe the migrants (to 1930s Germany). I think that is fair enough. The question whether BBC employees, or the highest profile ones, should be able to air personal opinions is the difficult part.
The anti free speech brigade just lie. It is pointless arguing with these people
You’re looking forward to Jeremy Clarkson presenting the next series of Who Wants to be a Millionaire?
Regarding the Lineker Affair, my working assumption has been that BBC brass was urged in a less-than-gentle way to stifle GL.
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?
I don't think the BBC brass was necessarily urged to stifle Gary Lineker. They decided they could make an example of him, but didn't think it through. Thing is they have now become the problem, not just Lineker.
Casino - for the umpteenth time he did not compare the POLICY to Nazi Germany. He compared the LANGUAGE being used to describe the migrants (to 1930s Germany). I think that is fair enough. The question whether BBC employees, or the highest profile ones, should be able to air personal opinions is the difficult part.
The anti free speech brigade just lie. It is pointless arguing with these people
I'm not sure people are as tribal as you think. Most people's views are nuanced.
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.
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
First of all - no he didn't. He said the language used was reminiscent of the Nazis. Which may be an exaggeration but given the increasingly authoritarian and xenophobic behaviour of Braverman in particular can hardly be said to be utterly outrageous. Clamping down on protests, attacking the press, demonising 'otherness' and routine flouting of the law as Braverman has done were all things the Nazis did. True, she has not gone nearly so far as they did, but she is going much too far for a fully democratic system to be healthy.
Under the guidelines as explained by the corporation's own former officer, a sports presenter on a freelance contract making comments, including political comments on a non-BBC platform is not considered to be a breach of impartiality.
Therefore, ironically, in reacting as they did and taking him off air for his political views, the BBC have - in fact - not acted with political impartiality.
They have also broken his contract, breached their own rules, wrecked their programme schedules, caused the whole tweet to dominate several news cycles and made themselves a national laughing stock.
This is not an employment issue. It is not even a free speech issue. It is an example of How To Look Incredibly Thick and Politically Biased.
If they had just quietly said to Lineker 'dial it down please, we're getting complaints' the whole stupid mess could have been avoided.
The problem with this argument is that plenty of your fellow travellers, including @RochdalePioneers, say it absolutely was a comparion to the Nazis and rightly so.
It insults all our intelligence to pretend it wasn't. So let's move on from this shall we.
I do not for one minute believe that the term 'language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s' would stand as a synonym for 'Nazis' in a court of law, e.g in a libel case.
Casino - for the umpteenth time he did not compare the POLICY to Nazi Germany. He compared the LANGUAGE being used to describe the migrants (to 1930s Germany). I think that is fair enough. The question whether BBC employees, or the highest profile ones, should be able to air personal opinions is the difficult part.
The anti free speech brigade just lie. It is pointless arguing with these people
I'm not sure people are as tribal as you think. Most people's views are nuanced.
Everyone on PB attacking Lineker so far has been “free speech” and anti woke to the best of my knowledge. So in this case I do think they are all the same yes.
If I have missed anyone then consider me corrected. Anyway your original point was good.
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
First of all - no he didn't. He said the language used was reminiscent of the Nazis. Which may be an exaggeration but given the increasingly authoritarian and xenophobic behaviour of Braverman in particular can hardly be said to be utterly outrageous. Clamping down on protests, attacking the press, demonising 'otherness' and routine flouting of the law as Braverman has done were all things the Nazis did. True, she has not gone nearly so far as they did, but she is going much too far for a fully democratic system to be healthy.
Under the guidelines as explained by the corporation's own former officer, a sports presenter on a freelance contract making comments, including political comments on a non-BBC platform is not considered to be a breach of impartiality.
Therefore, ironically, in reacting as they did and taking him off air for his political views, the BBC have - in fact - not acted with political impartiality.
They have also broken his contract, breached their own rules, wrecked their programme schedules, caused the whole tweet to dominate several news cycles and made themselves a national laughing stock.
This is not an employment issue. It is not even a free speech issue. It is an example of How To Look Incredibly Thick and Politically Biased.
If they had just quietly said to Lineker 'dial it down please, we're getting complaints' the whole stupid mess could have been avoided.
The problem with this argument is that plenty of your fellow travellers, including @RochdalePioneers, say it absolutely was a comparion to the Nazis and rightly so.
It insults all our intelligence to pretend it wasn't. So let's move on from this shall we.
I do not for one minute believe that the term 'language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s' would stand as a synonym for 'Nazis' in a court of law, e.g in a libel case.
I don’t think anyone actually thinks it was a comparison to the Nazis. Just bad faith actors who funnily enough support the Government.
Regarding the Lineker Affair, my working assumption has been that BBC brass was urged in a less-than-gentle way to stifle GL.
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?
I don't think the BBC brass was necessarily urged to stifle Gary Lineker. They decided they could make an example of him, but didn't think it through. Thing is they have now become the problem, not just Lineker.
I don't agree. I think they succumbed to pressure, but more from Tory MPs, Braverman, and the right-wing press rather than "the government", which kept its distance.
People fleeing Afghanistan or Iraq aren’t economic migrants either. They’re fleeing a war.
Could it perhaps be because they’re not white? Surely not
Most people have no issue with people fleeing Afghanistan, but I don’t think Iraq is at war? There is also a huge issue right now with Albanians, fleeing a safe European nation.
I dont doubt that racism is part of the issue. Sadly it’s part of human nature to be more comfortable with people more like you. Blond, white Ukrainians will always be less threatening than dark skinned Afgannies.
None of that changes the issue of how you save lives by stopping small boat crossings, which is what this farago is about.
Some immigrant groups integrate better than others.
There seems to be a phenomenon where exposure to the affluent West, generates a vitriolic response in the incomer. Nuclear grade misogyny seems to be one expression if it.
Regarding the Lineker Affair, my working assumption has been that BBC brass was urged in a less-than-gentle way to stifle GL.
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?
I don't think the BBC brass was necessarily urged to stifle Gary Lineker. They decided they could make an example of him, but didn't think it through. Thing is they have now become the problem, not just Lineker.
Given the Chairman and DG are both Tories I don't think much urging from HMG would have been required.
Regarding the Lineker Affair, my working assumption has been that BBC brass was urged in a less-than-gentle way to stifle GL.
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?
I don't think the BBC brass was necessarily urged to stifle Gary Lineker. They decided they could make an example of him, but didn't think it through. Thing is they have now become the problem, not just Lineker.
I don't agree. I think they succumbed to pressure, but more from Tory MPs, Braverman, and the right-wing press rather than "the government", which kept its distance.
Exactly. If Lineker had said how good the policy was we wouldn’t be talking.
The same people cancelling Lineker now would be saying that he was free to say what he wants
Regarding the Lineker Affair, my working assumption has been that BBC brass was urged in a less-than-gentle way to stifle GL.
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?
I don't think the BBC brass was necessarily urged to stifle Gary Lineker. They decided they could make an example of him, but didn't think it through. Thing is they have now become the problem, not just Lineker.
Yes, it’s a question of competence. It was such a bad decision that I gasped in amazement when I heard of it. I know enough about football to know that the the team bonds formed with Shearer and Wright when they played for England many years ago would inevitably lead to them walking out too. And I’m just a bum on PB, so I’m amazed that Davie couldn’t see it too.
I apologize unreservedly, indeed fervently, for any pain, hurt, damage, loss or other bad thing possibly suffered by TSE, when I implied that he is an rapid anti-gallican.
This in spite of any statements he may have published on PB, declaring in the strongest terms, that the Fecking Frogs are a degenerate bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
The bigger mystery to me is why Lineker is the highest paid person at the BBC? Is it familiarity? Star quality. He's not as good as Des or Steve Ryder though as an ex-player I guess that adds something to the football coverage. He's isn't particularly funny (see They Think It's All Over) or a quality writer. What's his value?
The bigger mystery to me is why Lineker is the highest paid person at the BBC? Is it familiarity? Star quality. He's not as good as Des or Steve Ryder though as an ex-player I guess that adds something to the football coverage. He's isn't particularly funny (see They Think It's All Over) or a quality writer. What's his value?
Free market forces. That’s what we love in this great country
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
First of all - no he didn't. He said the language used was reminiscent of the Nazis. Which may be an exaggeration but given the increasingly authoritarian and xenophobic behaviour of Braverman in particular can hardly be said to be utterly outrageous. Clamping down on protests, attacking the press, demonising 'otherness' and routine flouting of the law as Braverman has done were all things the Nazis did. True, she has not gone nearly so far as they did, but she is going much too far for a fully democratic system to be healthy.
Under the guidelines as explained by the corporation's own former officer, a sports presenter on a freelance contract making comments, including political comments on a non-BBC platform is not considered to be a breach of impartiality.
Therefore, ironically, in reacting as they did and taking him off air for his political views, the BBC have - in fact - not acted with political impartiality.
They have also broken his contract, breached their own rules, wrecked their programme schedules, caused the whole tweet to dominate several news cycles and made themselves a national laughing stock.
This is not an employment issue. It is not even a free speech issue. It is an example of How To Look Incredibly Thick and Politically Biased.
If they had just quietly said to Lineker 'dial it down please, we're getting complaints' the whole stupid mess could have been avoided.
The problem with this argument is that plenty of your fellow travellers, including @RochdalePioneers, say it absolutely was a comparion to the Nazis and rightly so.
It insults all our intelligence to pretend it wasn't. So let's move on from this shall we.
I do not for one minute believe that the term 'language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s' would stand as a synonym for 'Nazis' in a court of law, e.g in a libel case.
I don’t think anyone actually thinks it was a comparison to the Nazis. Just bad faith actors who funnily enough support the Government.
Of course it was a comparison to the Nazis.
There are some people who regard making a comparison to the Nazis as something like an argument version of a trump card, so that their opponent in the argument instantly loses. It's a boring and lazy way to conduct a debate, but it's not something anyone should lose their job over.
Of course, sometimes such a comparison will be warranted, but nearly as often as it is invoked.
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
First of all - no he didn't. He said the language used was reminiscent of the Nazis. Which may be an exaggeration but given the increasingly authoritarian and xenophobic behaviour of Braverman in particular can hardly be said to be utterly outrageous. Clamping down on protests, attacking the press, demonising 'otherness' and routine flouting of the law as Braverman has done were all things the Nazis did. True, she has not gone nearly so far as they did, but she is going much too far for a fully democratic system to be healthy.
Under the guidelines as explained by the corporation's own former officer, a sports presenter on a freelance contract making comments, including political comments on a non-BBC platform is not considered to be a breach of impartiality.
Therefore, ironically, in reacting as they did and taking him off air for his political views, the BBC have - in fact - not acted with political impartiality.
They have also broken his contract, breached their own rules, wrecked their programme schedules, caused the whole tweet to dominate several news cycles and made themselves a national laughing stock.
This is not an employment issue. It is not even a free speech issue. It is an example of How To Look Incredibly Thick and Politically Biased.
If they had just quietly said to Lineker 'dial it down please, we're getting complaints' the whole stupid mess could have been avoided.
The problem with this argument is that plenty of your fellow travellers, including @RochdalePioneers, say it absolutely was a comparion to the Nazis and rightly so.
It insults all our intelligence to pretend it wasn't. So let's move on from this shall we.
I do not for one minute believe that the term 'language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s' would stand as a synonym for 'Nazis' in a court of law, e.g in a libel case.
As before: because it includes the crtical period 1930-33.
It doesn't matter what PBTories or any other kind of Tory want to fervidly imagine that Mr LIneker said, if it is not what he actually wrote in black and white.
I apologize unreservedly, indeed fervently, for any pain, hurt, damage, loss or other bad thing possibly suffered by TSE, when I implied that he is an rapid anti-gallican.
This in spite of any statements he may have published on PB, declaring in the strongest terms, that the Fecking Frogs are a degenerate bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
'rapid' is presumably a typo. We all know you meant 'vapid' (which I in no way could agree with, just to say).
Regarding the Lineker Affair, my working assumption has been that BBC brass was urged in a less-than-gentle way to stifle GL.
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?
I don't think the BBC brass was necessarily urged to stifle Gary Lineker. They decided they could make an example of him, but didn't think it through. Thing is they have now become the problem, not just Lineker.
I don't agree. I think they succumbed to pressure, but more from Tory MPs, Braverman, and the right-wing press rather than "the government", which kept its distance.
The government currently have a bit more sense. Unfortunately, they don't have control of the situation.
People fleeing Afghanistan or Iraq aren’t economic migrants either. They’re fleeing a war.
Could it perhaps be because they’re not white? Surely not
Most people have no issue with people fleeing Afghanistan, but I don’t think Iraq is at war? There is also a huge issue right now with Albanians, fleeing a safe European nation.
I dont doubt that racism is part of the issue. Sadly it’s part of human nature to be more comfortable with people more like you. Blond, white Ukrainians will always be less threatening than dark skinned Afgannies.
None of that changes the issue of how you save lives by stopping small boat crossings, which is what this farago is about.
Some immigrant groups integrate better than others.
There seems to be a phenomenon where exposure to the affluent West, generates a vitriolic response in the incomer. Nuclear grade misogyny seems to be one expression if 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.
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
First of all - no he didn't. He said the language used was reminiscent of the Nazis. Which may be an exaggeration but given the increasingly authoritarian and xenophobic behaviour of Braverman in particular can hardly be said to be utterly outrageous. Clamping down on protests, attacking the press, demonising 'otherness' and routine flouting of the law as Braverman has done were all things the Nazis did. True, she has not gone nearly so far as they did, but she is going much too far for a fully democratic system to be healthy.
Under the guidelines as explained by the corporation's own former officer, a sports presenter on a freelance contract making comments, including political comments on a non-BBC platform is not considered to be a breach of impartiality.
Therefore, ironically, in reacting as they did and taking him off air for his political views, the BBC have - in fact - not acted with political impartiality.
They have also broken his contract, breached their own rules, wrecked their programme schedules, caused the whole tweet to dominate several news cycles and made themselves a national laughing stock.
This is not an employment issue. It is not even a free speech issue. It is an example of How To Look Incredibly Thick and Politically Biased.
If they had just quietly said to Lineker 'dial it down please, we're getting complaints' the whole stupid mess could have been avoided.
The problem with this argument is that plenty of your fellow travellers, including @RochdalePioneers, say it absolutely was a comparion to the Nazis and rightly so.
It insults all our intelligence to pretend it wasn't. So let's move on from this shall we.
I do not for one minute believe that the term 'language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s' would stand as a synonym for 'Nazis' in a court of law, e.g in a libel case.
I don’t think anyone actually thinks it was a comparison to the Nazis. Just bad faith actors who funnily enough support the Government.
The bigger mystery to me is why Lineker is the highest paid person at the BBC? Is it familiarity? Star quality. He's not as good as Des or Steve Ryder though as an ex-player I guess that adds something to the football coverage. He's isn't particularly funny (see They Think It's All Over) or a quality writer. What's his value?
Free market forces. That’s what we love in this great country
Exactly. Curious how the PBTories have been so insistent that it couldn't possibly be free market forces. You know, like competition with Sky or BT or whatever.
People fleeing Afghanistan or Iraq aren’t economic migrants either. They’re fleeing a war.
Could it perhaps be because they’re not white? Surely not
Most people have no issue with people fleeing Afghanistan, but I don’t think Iraq is at war? There is also a huge issue right now with Albanians, fleeing a safe European nation.
I dont doubt that racism is part of the issue. Sadly it’s part of human nature to be more comfortable with people more like you. Blond, white Ukrainians will always be less threatening than dark skinned Afgannies.
None of that changes the issue of how you save lives by stopping small boat crossings, which is what this farago is about.
Some immigrant groups integrate better than others.
There seems to be a phenomenon where exposure to the affluent West, generates a vitriolic response in the incomer. Nuclear grade misogyny seems to be one expression if it.
Regarding the Lineker Affair, my working assumption has been that BBC brass was urged in a less-than-gentle way to stifle GL.
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?
I don't think the BBC brass was necessarily urged to stifle Gary Lineker. They decided they could make an example of him, but didn't think it through. Thing is they have now become the problem, not just Lineker.
I don't agree. I think they succumbed to pressure, but more from Tory MPs, Braverman, and the right-wing press rather than "the government", which kept its distance.
Braverman is in the government. I know, it's hard to believe but there it is.
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
First of all - no he didn't. He said the language used was reminiscent of the Nazis. Which may be an exaggeration but given the increasingly authoritarian and xenophobic behaviour of Braverman in particular can hardly be said to be utterly outrageous. Clamping down on protests, attacking the press, demonising 'otherness' and routine flouting of the law as Braverman has done were all things the Nazis did. True, she has not gone nearly so far as they did, but she is going much too far for a fully democratic system to be healthy.
Under the guidelines as explained by the corporation's own former officer, a sports presenter on a freelance contract making comments, including political comments on a non-BBC platform is not considered to be a breach of impartiality.
Therefore, ironically, in reacting as they did and taking him off air for his political views, the BBC have - in fact - not acted with political impartiality.
They have also broken his contract, breached their own rules, wrecked their programme schedules, caused the whole tweet to dominate several news cycles and made themselves a national laughing stock.
This is not an employment issue. It is not even a free speech issue. It is an example of How To Look Incredibly Thick and Politically Biased.
If they had just quietly said to Lineker 'dial it down please, we're getting complaints' the whole stupid mess could have been avoided.
The problem with this argument is that plenty of your fellow travellers, including @RochdalePioneers, say it absolutely was a comparion to the Nazis and rightly so.
It insults all our intelligence to pretend it wasn't. So let's move on from this shall we.
I do not for one minute believe that the term 'language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s' would stand as a synonym for 'Nazis' in a court of law, e.g in a libel case.
I don’t think anyone actually thinks it was a comparison to the Nazis. Just bad faith actors who funnily enough support the Government.
Of course it was a comparison to the Nazis.
There are some people who regard making a comparison to the Nazis as something like an argument version of a trump card, so that their opponent in the argument instantly loses. It's a boring and lazy way to conduct a debate, but it's not something anyone should lose their job over.
Of course, sometimes such a comparison will be warranted, but nearly as often as it is invoked.
Gary is not thick. And he’s never been afraid to say big accusations before, if he thought Nazis he’d have said Nazis.
I apologize unreservedly, indeed fervently, for any pain, hurt, damage, loss or other bad thing possibly suffered by TSE, when I implied that he is an rapid anti-gallican.
This in spite of any statements he may have published on PB, declaring in the strongest terms, that the Fecking Frogs are a degenerate bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
'rapid' is presumably a typo. We all know you meant 'vapid' (which I in no way could agree with, just to say).
Firstly you must always implicitly obey orders, without attempting to form any opinion of your own regarding their propriety. Secondly, you must consider every man your enemy who speaks ill of your king; and thirdly you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which was an equally stupid comment. But that is not the point. People should be allowed to make stupid comments without fear of their personal comments being used to push them out of their jobs.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
The highest paid BBC employee can say/tweet whatever he likes?
That's a strange rule for a state broadcaster
What if he did want to foment rebellion?
He isn't free to say what he likes. He's acting within his contract.
*always check the contract and the wording*
So he doesn't have freedom of speech (except on football, where he says fuck all), whereas the post I was responding to suggested he does/should?
He doesn't have freedom of speech in the areas dictated by his contract. aka football. Elsewhere, not a problem.
No limit to what the idiot can say outside of football?
Without being fired?
His contract will have limits on it - I suspect there will be an "actions bringing the BBC into disrepute" clause.
But you know what - there's a lot of case law on this, and the bar is a very high one for prevailing in court.
Where the BBC do need to tighten up a bit, in my view, is on the guidelines for impartiality for employees/disguised employees who aren't directly involved in news, talk show or current affairs output.
Such employees are still able to damage the brand and its reputation for impartiality but it's not entirely clear what the boundaries are, except that what Lineker said was so wild it would clearly cross them wherever they were.
As stupid as Lineker's comments are, I would be very surprised if a Jury found he had brought the BBC into disrepute.
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
First of all - no he didn't. He said the language used was reminiscent of the Nazis. Which may be an exaggeration but given the increasingly authoritarian and xenophobic behaviour of Braverman in particular can hardly be said to be utterly outrageous. Clamping down on protests, attacking the press, demonising 'otherness' and routine flouting of the law as Braverman has done were all things the Nazis did. True, she has not gone nearly so far as they did, but she is going much too far for a fully democratic system to be healthy.
Under the guidelines as explained by the corporation's own former officer, a sports presenter on a freelance contract making comments, including political comments on a non-BBC platform is not considered to be a breach of impartiality.
Therefore, ironically, in reacting as they did and taking him off air for his political views, the BBC have - in fact - not acted with political impartiality.
They have also broken his contract, breached their own rules, wrecked their programme schedules, caused the whole tweet to dominate several news cycles and made themselves a national laughing stock.
This is not an employment issue. It is not even a free speech issue. It is an example of How To Look Incredibly Thick and Politically Biased.
If they had just quietly said to Lineker 'dial it down please, we're getting complaints' the whole stupid mess could have been avoided.
The problem with this argument is that plenty of your fellow travellers, including @RochdalePioneers, say it absolutely was a comparion to the Nazis and rightly so.
It insults all our intelligence to pretend it wasn't. So let's move on from this shall we.
I do not for one minute believe that the term 'language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s' would stand as a synonym for 'Nazis' in a court of law, e.g in a libel case.
I don’t think anyone actually thinks it was a comparison to the Nazis. Just bad faith actors who funnily enough support the Government.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which was an equally stupid comment. But that is not the point. People should be allowed to make stupid comments without fear of their personal comments being used to push them out of their jobs.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
The highest paid BBC employee can say/tweet whatever he likes?
That's a strange rule for a state broadcaster
What if he did want to foment rebellion?
He isn't free to say what he likes. He's acting within his contract.
*always check the contract and the wording*
So he doesn't have freedom of speech (except on football, where he says fuck all), whereas the post I was responding to suggested he does/should?
He doesn't have freedom of speech in the areas dictated by his contract. aka football. Elsewhere, not a problem.
No limit to what the idiot can say outside of football?
Without being fired?
His contract will have limits on it - I suspect there will be an "actions bringing the BBC into disrepute" clause.
But you know what - there's a lot of case law on this, and the bar is a very high one for prevailing in court.
Where the BBC do need to tighten up a bit, in my view, is on the guidelines for impartiality for employees/disguised employees who aren't directly involved in news, talk show or current affairs output.
Such employees are still able to damage the brand and its reputation for impartiality but it's not entirely clear what the boundaries are, except that what Lineker said was so wild it would clearly cross them wherever they were.
As stupid as Lineker's comments are, I would be very surprised if a Jury found he had brought the BBC into disrepute.
It's hard, all other considerations aside, to see how he could have brought it more into disrepute than Sharp has.
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
First of all - no he didn't. He said the language used was reminiscent of the Nazis. Which may be an exaggeration but given the increasingly authoritarian and xenophobic behaviour of Braverman in particular can hardly be said to be utterly outrageous. Clamping down on protests, attacking the press, demonising 'otherness' and routine flouting of the law as Braverman has done were all things the Nazis did. True, she has not gone nearly so far as they did, but she is going much too far for a fully democratic system to be healthy.
Under the guidelines as explained by the corporation's own former officer, a sports presenter on a freelance contract making comments, including political comments on a non-BBC platform is not considered to be a breach of impartiality.
Therefore, ironically, in reacting as they did and taking him off air for his political views, the BBC have - in fact - not acted with political impartiality.
They have also broken his contract, breached their own rules, wrecked their programme schedules, caused the whole tweet to dominate several news cycles and made themselves a national laughing stock.
This is not an employment issue. It is not even a free speech issue. It is an example of How To Look Incredibly Thick and Politically Biased.
If they had just quietly said to Lineker 'dial it down please, we're getting complaints' the whole stupid mess could have been avoided.
The problem with this argument is that plenty of your fellow travellers, including @RochdalePioneers, say it absolutely was a comparion to the Nazis and rightly so.
It insults all our intelligence to pretend it wasn't. So let's move on from this shall we.
I do not for one minute believe that the term 'language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s' would stand as a synonym for 'Nazis' in a court of law, e.g in a libel case.
I don’t think anyone actually thinks it was a comparison to the Nazis. Just bad faith actors who funnily enough support the Government.
Of course it was. Naive to say it wasn’t.
Curious how the PBTories are so insistent on Godwinning Mr Lineker as if they think they'll instantly win the argument.
Mr Lineker's tweet was actually more subtly worded and more specifically so than the usual Godwin.
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.
Well, yes, because different rules would apply.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
He did bring the corporation into disrepute. He compared one of the leading policies of the Government of the day, which commands majority support, to be similar to the Nazis.
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
First of all - no he didn't. He said the language used was reminiscent of the Nazis. Which may be an exaggeration but given the increasingly authoritarian and xenophobic behaviour of Braverman in particular can hardly be said to be utterly outrageous. Clamping down on protests, attacking the press, demonising 'otherness' and routine flouting of the law as Braverman has done were all things the Nazis did. True, she has not gone nearly so far as they did, but she is going much too far for a fully democratic system to be healthy.
Under the guidelines as explained by the corporation's own former officer, a sports presenter on a freelance contract making comments, including political comments on a non-BBC platform is not considered to be a breach of impartiality.
Therefore, ironically, in reacting as they did and taking him off air for his political views, the BBC have - in fact - not acted with political impartiality.
They have also broken his contract, breached their own rules, wrecked their programme schedules, caused the whole tweet to dominate several news cycles and made themselves a national laughing stock.
This is not an employment issue. It is not even a free speech issue. It is an example of How To Look Incredibly Thick and Politically Biased.
If they had just quietly said to Lineker 'dial it down please, we're getting complaints' the whole stupid mess could have been avoided.
The problem with this argument is that plenty of your fellow travellers, including @RochdalePioneers, say it absolutely was a comparion to the Nazis and rightly so.
It insults all our intelligence to pretend it wasn't. So let's move on from this shall we.
I do not for one minute believe that the term 'language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s' would stand as a synonym for 'Nazis' in a court of law, e.g in a libel case.
I don’t think anyone actually thinks it was a comparison to the Nazis. Just bad faith actors who funnily enough support the Government.
Of course it was. Naive to say it wasn’t.
So why didn’t he say Nazis then?
He didn’t need to, the allusion was enough. Did you think he was talking about Alfred Hugenbourg? Or the KPD?
Comments
Edited because I cannae spell!
https://www.barb.co.uk/about-us/how-we-do-what-we-do/
Remember, it's "Workers of the World Unite"
Nationalist division is an aid to the ruling class.
They were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. Lineker put them in that position.
It's why I think his suspension was justified, and it's employment not a free speech issue.
But he was a part time freelancer talking in his personal capacity on a separate platform. Whether you agree with what he said or not, it's difficult to argue that the BBC should suspend him for impartiality reasons.
Bringing the corporation into disrepute would have been a stronger ground, but TBF they've done an awesome job of that themselves.
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1635014450938892295
He's one of their leading staffers on a massive salary. He fronts one of their biggest shows. And how many days a week he works at it or his contractual arrangements are irrelevant. He's strongly associated with them and their brand and they pay him, using licence fee payers money. Under IR35 he would be considered a disguised employee. And he crossed the line.
The BBC were right to enter talks with him over the issue, and to suspend him when he refused to discuss any moderation whatsoever.
It's not a free speech issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carole_Hersee
Unless you meant the doll...
The way to stop this is remove the draw that the black economy modern slavery system provides.
Ideas to support that: citizenship route for grassing on illegal employers, ID cards, random checks on at-risk businesses such as car washes, nail bars etc., proper resources for processing and keeping tabs on asylum-seekers, require those awaiting processing to work and thus to pay for their keep, push for a comprehensive EU-wide agreement on how to handle immigration from outside Europe (would require us to rejoin the EU, so that's a win-win), legalise, tax and regulate recreational drugs to attack the drug gangs black economy...
I could go on.
And his contract allows him to do so - because he chats about sport rather than news unlike say Andrew Neil who said similar things while fronting the BBC’s politics programs
It’s worth saying that your love of free speech only extends to people with views identical to your own.
So what about the other 20%, or 78000 refugees?
But you know what - there's a lot of case law on this, and the bar is a very high one for prevailing in court.
There's nothing wrong with that position in itself (I'm far more liberal on migration than most of the public), but if someone is saying we should let people in because of course they want to come because things are very tough when they come from, and in particular if they criticise any border restriction activity in practice, open borders kind of logically follows. If its wrong to exclude economic migrants and wrong to have firm measures in place, then totally open borders is the end point.
That's why people like Keir have to make such a big deal about not wanting totally open borders - because some of the arguments people use do imply that.
Plus indefinite leave to remain.
Every ambulance chasing law firm will become a prosecutor. Every migrant an inspector. All for free.
with the Old English Sheepdog as runner-up
Moving on. I am not a big watcher of Match of the Day but it strikes me there's a lot of curation behind the presentation and analysis. Is that Lineker's job, as well as fronting the programme, or does he trot out lines prepared for him by an army of anonymous producers?
It's very boring.
Under the guidelines as explained by the corporation's own former officer, a sports presenter on a freelance contract making comments, including political comments on a non-BBC platform is not considered to be a breach of impartiality.
Therefore, ironically, in reacting as they did and taking him off air for his political views, the BBC have - in fact - not acted with political impartiality.
They have also broken his contract, breached their own rules, wrecked their programme schedules, caused the whole tweet to dominate several news cycles and made themselves a national laughing stock.
This is not an employment issue. It is not even a free speech issue. It is an example of How To Look Incredibly Thick and Politically Biased.
If they had just quietly said to Lineker 'dial it down please, we're getting complaints' the whole stupid mess could have been avoided.
But then there are also people who claim to be pro migration on compassionate grounds, but who cannot clearly explain what they think the upper limit of people coming in to the UK should be, nor what the criteria should be for letting them in.
Such employees are still able to damage the brand and its reputation for impartiality but it's not entirely clear what the boundaries are, except that what Lineker said was so wild it would clearly cross them wherever they were.
Could it perhaps be because they’re not white? Surely not
It insults all our intelligence to pretend it wasn't. So let's move on from this shall we.
The issue is more about the workability of and support for that longstanding policy, which is clearly fraying as people just don't really give a crap whether football presenters get political, off air. It's in the rules, he may have agreed to it, but as we can see if people do not play ball it's a PR nightmare.
They were in a bind (ydotheur's suggestion of telling him to dial it down was not workable, since he clearly won't stop with his opinions as he's had less severe reactions before), and decided to play it tough. That was probably a mistake as I don't think it's a fight they can win, not outright.
Seriously, sorry to hear that, and I hope you can take solace from randoms on PB, who, for the most part, are decent folk.
It’s a very GB News approach
But probably mainly men over 60 or with disabilities / long-term health problems.
No doubt a few who ought to have stayed under the rules have fled too (think Ukrainian Leons). Always astonishes me that people sometimes break the rules.
Copy and pasta to Google translate.
They don’t have a direct count of men of military age - 18-50 - but it will be some fraction of the 20%
Honestly, if you can't even read my posts I don't think you're in a position to grumble about people insulting your intelligence!
And you might at least have tried to engage with the substance.
Edit - I think your problem is you're getting confused in your own mind. He said the language used was reminiscent of the Nazis. You seem to think he said the policy was.
Lack of sleep, perhaps? I know things are a bit tough for you right now.
I dont doubt that racism is part of the issue. Sadly it’s part of human nature to be more comfortable with people more like you. Blond, white Ukrainians will always be less threatening than dark skinned Afgannies.
None of that changes the issue of how you save lives by stopping small boat crossings, which is what this farago is about.
https://www.dw.com/en/how-ukrainian-men-try-to-get-around-the-ban-to-leave-the-country/a-62529639
If I have missed anyone then consider me corrected. Anyway your original point was good.
There seems to be a phenomenon where exposure to the affluent West, generates a vitriolic response in the incomer. Nuclear grade misogyny seems to be one expression if it.
The same people cancelling Lineker now would be saying that he was free to say what he wants
This in spite of any statements he may have published on PB, declaring in the strongest terms, that the Fecking Frogs are a degenerate bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
There are some people who regard making a comparison to the Nazis as something like an argument version of a trump card, so that their opponent in the argument instantly loses. It's a boring and lazy way to conduct a debate, but it's not something anyone should lose their job over.
Of course, sometimes such a comparison will be warranted, but nearly as often as it is invoked.
It doesn't matter what PBTories or any other kind of Tory want to fervidly imagine that Mr LIneker said, if it is not what he actually wrote in black and white.
Firstly you must always implicitly obey orders, without attempting to form any opinion of your own regarding their propriety. Secondly, you must consider every man your enemy who speaks ill of your king; and thirdly you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil.
Mr Lineker's tweet was actually more subtly worded and more specifically so than the usual Godwin.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.