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.
They obviously didn't consider that fact in conjunction with their actions on Lineker would raise more issues of partiality than anything Lineker has done.
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.
Yes I know, but she's always been a bit of a loose cannon. (And should preferably be shot into outer space from one).
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
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.
I’m not trying to win an argument. It was clear to me, and most people what he meant.
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.
No chance of him apologising IMO
Needs the 9 Tory appointed BBC Trust members, the Head of News brought in from GBN, the DG and Chairman all to apologise to him for singling him out whilst allowing dozens of Tory Shrills to go scot free
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
Ah, that's a shame. Was sorry to see Northern_Al banned.
Talks with Northern_Al are said to be "moving in the right direction" in an effort to reinstate him before tomorrow night's big 'Was the Lab Leak caused by Brexit?' debate.
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.
Nah that's bullshit. Remember I am batting against the PB Tories on this as far as getting rid of Lineker goes. But even I recognise he was dog whistling and expected everyone to read his tweet as comparing the Tories with the Nazis. Indeed if you spent a few minutes on social media and saw all the stuff being dredged up from the 1930s (Daily Mail commentaries etc) by those who agree with Lineker you would see that every one of them thinks he was explicitly comparing the Tories with the Nazis.
Deep down it is obvious you think that as well. Have the courage of your convictions. There are far more honest ways to defend Lineker than pretending he has been misrepresented.
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.
I’m not trying to win an argument. It was clear to me, and most people what he meant.
Was it, in an era when the NS-Zeit forms a significant part of the history curriculum in English schools? [not sure about W, NI and S]?
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?
Maybe he’s aping SAS men and their references to spending time near Hereford…
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.
Nah that's bullshit. Remember I am batting against the PB Tories on this as far as getting rid of Lineker goes. But even I recognise he was dog whistling and expected everyone to read his tweet as comparing the Tories with the Nazis. Indeed if you spent a few minutes on social media and saw all the stuff being dredged up from the 1930s (Daily Mail commentaries etc) by those who agree with Lineker you would see that every one of them thinks he was explicitly comparing the Tories with the Nazis.
Deep down it is obvious you think that as well. Have the courage of your convictions. There are far more honest ways to defend Lineker than pretending he has been misrepresented.
Richard I didn’t read it like that and I am being honest by saying so.
You are a good chap but I don’t like the implication I am lying.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
No, they are at the moment and it’s a disgrace. I want them out and Labour in power.
That said I have low expectations of the next government.
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
The free speech brigade want him cancelled.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
Nah that's bullshit. Remember I am batting against the PB Tories on this as far as getting rid of Lineker goes. But even I recognise he was dog whistling and expected everyone to read his tweet as comparing the Tories with the Nazis. Indeed if you spent a few minutes on social media and saw all the stuff being dredged up from the 1930s (Daily Mail commentaries etc) by those who agree with Lineker you would see that every one of them thinks he was explicitly comparing the Tories with the Nazis.
Deep down it is obvious you think that as well. Have the courage of your convictions. There are far more honest ways to defend Lineker than pretending he has been misrepresented.
Exactly. Nobody invokes comparisons with 30s Germany meaning anything other than the Nazis unless they explicitly clarify that they don't mean the Nazis.
If I said "Labour's policy is like 50s Russia" everyone would know what I meant, I'd have to go out of my way to explain I didn't mean Stalin.
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
I agree, but I don't think it's useful to compare people to Nazis. They can just say, we don't plan to use gas chambers, so we're fine. End of conversation. When they are maybe not very nice people, fascists even.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
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.
I’m not trying to win an argument. It was clear to me, and most people what he meant.
Was it, in an era when the NS-Zeit forms a significant part of the history curriculum in English schools? [not sure about W, NI and S]?
Whatever your views on what Lineker said, can we all agree the mere fact we are still discussing one tweet he made several days ago is very bad news for (a) the government and (b) the BBC?
I mean, talk about creating a hurricane out of a storm in a teacup...
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
No, they are at the moment and it’s a disgrace. I want them out and Labour in power.
That said I have low expectations of the next government.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Whatever your views on what Lineker said, can we all agree the mere fact we are still discussing one tweet he made several days ago is very bad news for (a) the government and (b) the BBC?
I mean, talk about creating a hurricane out of a storm in a teacup...
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
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.
Given the casualty rates, it is entirely unsurprising.
But is it not completely astonishing that western countries are facilitating desertion by granting refugee status to men of military age, as I believe they do, whilst also supporting Ukraine in the war against Russia? To me it reveals deeply confused priorities.
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
The free speech brigade want him cancelled.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
All because the Tories don’t like him.
The BBC, in my view, are not doing this because the Tories have pressured them. They are paranoid about balance. It’s why they hate having brands on the airwaves, and will say the others are available. They are bound by codes of conduct about impartiality, and dependent on the government of the day for the teat of the licence fee. Upset the government, of whatever colour, and they fear punishment. They cowered before Labour under Blair. They are doing similar again.
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.
Nah that's bullshit. Remember I am batting against the PB Tories on this as far as getting rid of Lineker goes. But even I recognise he was dog whistling and expected everyone to read his tweet as comparing the Tories with the Nazis. Indeed if you spent a few minutes on social media and saw all the stuff being dredged up from the 1930s (Daily Mail commentaries etc) by those who agree with Lineker you would see that every one of them thinks he was explicitly comparing the Tories with the Nazis.
Deep down it is obvious you think that as well. Have the courage of your convictions. There are far more honest ways to defend Lineker than pretending he has been misrepresented.
Richard I didn’t read it like that and I am being honest by saying so.
You are a good chap but I don’t like the implication I am lying.
Well, the other implication is you are too stupid to know what is going on.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
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.
Time for another off-topic, I suspect.
Anyway here goes. Lineker does not mention the Nazis. Nonetheless, he is clearly alluding to the notion that "othering" can lead to more sinister activities.
Lineker is a critic of this Government, he has made no secret of this. Sugar is a critic (with some justification given his creed) of Corbyn and the Corbyn Labour Party, he has made no secret of this. What is the difference?
Lineker is a critic of Qatar's human rights record, he broadcast this ON his BBC show, he was not censured. Lineker Tweets a critique of UK immigration policy, he does not comment his view on a BBC show, and likely as not he will be dismissed. Why the inconsistency?
Andrew Neil has been an unashamed lifelong Conservative, he has courted controversy from time to time, in 1992 Andrew Neil was censured by anti-Nazi groups for using David Irving to translate Joseph Goebbel's diaries. Remember that, 1992. From 2003 until 2020 Andrew Neil has presented regularly political programming for the BBC. Where is the consistency?
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
I think it was particularly popular with one section of society.
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.
Nah that's bullshit. Remember I am batting against the PB Tories on this as far as getting rid of Lineker goes. But even I recognise he was dog whistling and expected everyone to read his tweet as comparing the Tories with the Nazis. Indeed if you spent a few minutes on social media and saw all the stuff being dredged up from the 1930s (Daily Mail commentaries etc) by those who agree with Lineker you would see that every one of them thinks he was explicitly comparing the Tories with the Nazis.
Deep down it is obvious you think that as well. Have the courage of your convictions. There are far more honest ways to defend Lineker than pretending he has been misrepresented.
Richard I didn’t read it like that and I am being honest by saying so.
You are a good chap but I don’t like the implication I am lying.
Well, the other implication is you are too stupid to know what is going on.
Never had you down as stupid.
Or perhaps just accept that we don’t agree? I did not read it as language used by the Nazis, rather language used in the 30s as Gary said.
If I said language used in 2001 would you assume I meant by Labour? Of course not
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
Not so much, as there were far fewer immigrants. Anti-semetism however was widespread in many countries, not limited to Germany.
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
The free speech brigade want him cancelled.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
All because the Tories don’t like him.
Witness also the shitstorm whipped up against Rashford in 2020/21 as he shamed the government into doing more for poor families.
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
The free speech brigade want him cancelled.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
All because the Tories don’t like him.
That’s an important point. In employment law and IR35 there’s a “control test”. Crudely employees are subject to a fairly high level of control, though clearly this does vary depending on the circumstances in each case. Contractors necessarily have more freedom. The more control the BBC exercise over Lineker there is a possibility, albeit remote, that HMRC may come and ask it for PAYE and employers NI contributions rather than chasing Lineker.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
I think it was particularly popular with one section of society.
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
The free speech brigade want him cancelled.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
All because the Tories don’t like him.
That’s an important point. In employment law and IR35 there’s a “control test”. Crudely employees are subject to a fairly high level of control, though clearly this does vary depending on the circumstances in each case. Contractors necessarily have more freedom. The more control the BBC exercise over Lineker there is a possibility, albeit remote, that HMRC may come and ask it for PAYE and employers NI contributions rather than chasing Lineker.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
Not so much, as there were far fewer immigrants. Anti-semetism however was widespread in many countries, not limited to Germany.
They were anti immigrants including and mostly referring to Jews.
Whatever your views on what Lineker said, can we all agree the mere fact we are still discussing one tweet he made several days ago is very bad news for (a) the government and (b) the BBC?
I mean, talk about creating a hurricane out of a storm in a teacup...
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
The free speech brigade want him cancelled.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
All because the Tories don’t like him.
Witness also the shitstorm whipped up against Rashford in 2020/21 as he shamed the government into doing more for poor families.
At some point the Government is going to realise it always loses when it tries to take on footballers.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
Not so much, as there were far fewer immigrants. Anti-semetism however was widespread in many countries, not limited to Germany.
They were anti immigrants including and mostly referring to Jews.
Sorry but that’s not correct. Most Jews were natives to their countries.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
I think it was particularly popular with one section of society.
Actually it was popular with mostly everyone.
So if everyone was using the same language, he was comparing it to the language used by the Nazis in the 30s.
Whatever your views on what Lineker said, can we all agree the mere fact we are still discussing one tweet he made several days ago is very bad news for (a) the government and (b) the BBC?
I mean, talk about creating a hurricane out of a storm in a teacup...
And with that, good night.
It also shows that the Daily Mail is hugely out of touch. Not with its readership. But with the broader public opinion. Which is good for Labour.
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
The free speech brigade want him cancelled.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
All because the Tories don’t like him.
That’s an important point. In employment law and IR35 there’s a “control test”. Crudely employees are subject to a fairly high level of control, though clearly this does vary depending on the circumstances in each case. Contractors necessarily have more freedom. The more control the BBC exercise over Lineker there is a possibility, albeit remote, that HMRC may come and ask it for PAYE and employers NI contributions rather than chasing Lineker.
Doug you’ve been excellent on this entire issue.
I’m an employment lawyer and this is pretty basic stuff. However, without seeing the contract, and not knowing the relevant policies at all well, I’m pissing in the wind a bit.
Ah, that's a shame. Was sorry to see Northern_Al banned.
Talks with Northern_Al are said to be "moving in the right direction" in an effort to reinstate him before tomorrow night's big 'Was the Lab Leak caused by Brexit?' debate.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
I think it was particularly popular with one section of society.
Actually it was popular with mostly everyone.
So if everyone was using the same language, he was comparing it to the language used by the Nazis in the 30s.
What?
That’s like saying if I said language used in 2003 by mostly everyone actually means I was referring to Labour.
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.
As I pointed out a few day's ago, he said 1930s Germany, not 1940s Germany, so he was drawing a distinction between the period under the Nazis when the final solution was in full swing, and the gas chambers were operational, and the period before that, to invoke the slippery slope argument.
if he'd said Nazis then he wouldn't have been able to draw that distinction, but it was Nazis in the 1930s and Nazis in the 1940s all the same.
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
The free speech brigade want him cancelled.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
All because the Tories don’t like him.
Witness also the shitstorm whipped up against Rashford in 2020/21 as he shamed the government into doing more for poor families.
At some point the Government is going to realise it always loses when it tries to take on footballers.
They are the "unacknowledged legislators of our time" now. Wonder what Keats would have made of it? "To Autumn" may well have been a meditation on the prospects of the Champions League group stages.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
Not so much, as there were far fewer immigrants. Anti-semetism however was widespread in many countries, not limited to Germany.
They were anti immigrants including and mostly referring to Jews.
Sorry but that’s not correct. Most Jews were natives to their countries.
The language used was about Jews flooding into Germany.
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.
That resembles nothing that I've seen or heard about in USA, at least as a mass phenomenon. Though certainly there are plenty of culture shocks for newcomers here, and for rest of us.
Remember well, when I was student living in cheap apartment in Baton Rouge in late 1970s, where the resident manager was a Hmong guy who'd fought alongside US forces in Vietnam, he lived below me with his wife, kids and a granny. He was the only one who spoke any English, the old lady used to spread the family laundry out of the shrubbery to dry. These folks were from the back of the boondocks, transported to late 20th-century quasi-urban America.
YET ANOTHER thing this makes me think about, is the advice that Fiorello La Guardia gave to an older Italian immigrant in his law office in Greenwich Village.
The old man wanted somebody to do something to help him curb his twenty-something daughter's wild (from his old-school point of view) behavior. No way, FLG told him - this is America.
La Guardia was himself a poster child for immigration and assimilation, for the rights AND duties of immigrants as American citizens. He directly aided thousands as a US consul, as an immigration agent, and as an attorney whose clients were mostly immigrants and their children. PLUS his active advocacy - to put it mildly - for immigrants as a congressman, in the teeth of rampant (and rabid) nativism.
Whatever your views on what Lineker said, can we all agree the mere fact we are still discussing one tweet he made several days ago is very bad news for (a) the government and (b) the BBC?
I mean, talk about creating a hurricane out of a storm in a teacup...
And with that, good night.
Right, own up who let the Quantum Butterfly out.
Who is editing the Daily Mail these days? The story was quietly fading away, then they did their LINEKER'S PLAYING BBC FOR FOOLS headline on Friday, and it all blew up again.
I'm not sure they are entirely acting in the interests of the Conservative government.
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
The free speech brigade want him cancelled.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
All because the Tories don’t like him.
That’s an important point. In employment law and IR35 there’s a “control test”. Crudely employees are subject to a fairly high level of control, though clearly this does vary depending on the circumstances in each case. Contractors necessarily have more freedom. The more control the BBC exercise over Lineker there is a possibility, albeit remote, that HMRC may come and ask it for PAYE and employers NI contributions rather than chasing Lineker.
As far as I'm concerned if he isn't on PAYE he isn't an employee. However I think the rules on impartiality obviously have to provide to all people 'on' the BBC, whether or not they are employees. I just think in this day and age it is unsustainable to expect no-one appearing on the BBC to air their own views off air. The main thing is that newscasters do as best they can to remain impartial on air. And if some of them like to be quite controversial in their views off air that is likely to be taken into account when the next contract comes along.
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
The free speech brigade want him cancelled.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
All because the Tories don’t like him.
That’s an important point. In employment law and IR35 there’s a “control test”. Crudely employees are subject to a fairly high level of control, though clearly this does vary depending on the circumstances in each case. Contractors necessarily have more freedom. The more control the BBC exercise over Lineker there is a possibility, albeit remote, that HMRC may come and ask it for PAYE and employers NI contributions rather than chasing Lineker.
Doug you’ve been excellent on this entire issue.
I’m an employment lawyer and this is pretty basic stuff. However, without seeing the contract, and not knowing the relevant policies at all well, I’m pissing in the wind a bit.
There are a number of reports online regarding Gary Lineker’s appeal against hmrc’s claim which was held the week before last.
Now he can afford (and has) very good lawyers so the judgment will be interesting
I suspect it also has some bearing on this case and vice versa
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Who was using the language to which you are referring to in 1930s Germany? Was it: (a) The German Communist Party? (b) The Social Democrat Party? (c) The Nazi Party?
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.
If the BBC had ignored it, or indeed not suspended him and just put out a statement, then it would have been forgotten about instantly. Instead the Tory placemen have turned it into the story of the weekend and rallied the country around Lineker, and will make it run all week.
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
The free speech brigade want him cancelled.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
All because the Tories don’t like him.
Witness also the shitstorm whipped up against Rashford in 2020/21 as he shamed the government into doing more for poor families.
At some point the Government is going to realise it always loses when it tries to take on footballers.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
I think it was particularly popular with one section of society.
Actually it was popular with mostly everyone.
So if everyone was using the same language, he was comparing it to the language used by the Nazis in the 30s.
What?
That’s like saying if I said language used in 2003 by mostly everyone actually means I was referring to Labour.
Nonsense point.
The nonsense point is to suggest that all aspects of German society were saying the same thing. No doubt there was a spectrum of views, but as Lineker's tweet was talking about an "immeasurably cruel policy", it's safe to assume he was referring to the most extreme views at the time.
It's obvious to everyone but apparently you that he was referring to the Nazi government. Remember he was referring to the language used by Germany (i.e. the government), not used in Germany.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
Not so much, as there were far fewer immigrants. Anti-semetism however was widespread in many countries, not limited to Germany.
They were anti immigrants including and mostly referring to Jews.
Sorry but that’s not correct. Most Jews were natives to their countries.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
I think it was particularly popular with one section of society.
Actually it was popular with mostly everyone.
So if everyone was using the same language, he was comparing it to the language used by the Nazis in the 30s.
What?
That’s like saying if I said language used in 2003 by mostly everyone actually means I was referring to Labour.
Nonsense point.
The nonsense point is to suggest that all aspects of German society were saying the same thing. No doubt there was a spectrum of views, but as Lineker's tweet was talking about an "immeasurably cruel policy", it's safe to assume he was referring to the most extreme views at the time.
It's obvious to everyone but apparently you that he was referring to the Nazi government. Remember he was referring to the language used by Germany (i.e. the government), not used in Germany.
It’s not just me. Read this thread and there are people agreeing with me.
You are saying he said something he didn’t say. He said 1930s Germany that is it. Never said the Nazis.
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
The free speech brigade want him cancelled.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
All because the Tories don’t like him.
That’s an important point. In employment law and IR35 there’s a “control test”. Crudely employees are subject to a fairly high level of control, though clearly this does vary depending on the circumstances in each case. Contractors necessarily have more freedom. The more control the BBC exercise over Lineker there is a possibility, albeit remote, that HMRC may come and ask it for PAYE and employers NI contributions rather than chasing Lineker.
As far as I'm concerned if he isn't on PAYE he isn't an employee. However I think the rules on impartiality obviously have to provide to all people 'on' the BBC, whether or not they are employees. I just think in this day and age it is unsustainable to expect no-one appearing on the BBC to air their own views off air. The main thing is that newscasters do as best they can to remain impartial on air. And if some of them like to be quite controversial in their views off air that is likely to be taken into account when the next contract comes along.
“ As far as I'm concerned if he isn't on PAYE he isn't an employee. “
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
Not so much, as there were far fewer immigrants. Anti-semetism however was widespread in many countries, not limited to Germany.
They were anti immigrants including and mostly referring to Jews.
Sorry but that’s not correct. Most Jews were natives to their countries.
The language used was about Jews flooding into Germany.
Can you show me some evidence of that? I’ve read far too much on the period and I do not recognise that characterisation. See for example the stab in the back myth.
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.
As I pointed out a few day's ago, he said 1930s Germany, not 1940s Germany, so he was drawing a distinction between the period under the Nazis when the final solution was in full swing, and the gas chambers were operational, and the period before that, to invoke the slippery slope argument.
if he'd said Nazis then he wouldn't have been able to draw that distinction, but it was Nazis in the 1930s and Nazis in the 1940s all the same.
I think we’re all over-analysing. One tweet, sent in a moment of exasperation that people were telling him he shouldn’t express an opinion on the Rwanda policy. The 30s German reference was throwaway, yes a bit Godwin, but I doubt he took more than a couple of minutes to compose it.
Twitter is full of bombast and exaggeration. We’re all analysing it as if it’s Xi’s foreign policy speech at the latest national congress of the Chinese Communist party.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
Not so much, as there were far fewer immigrants. Anti-semetism however was widespread in many countries, not limited to Germany.
They were anti immigrants including and mostly referring to Jews.
Sorry but that’s not correct. Most Jews were natives to their countries.
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
The free speech brigade want him cancelled.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
All because the Tories don’t like him.
That’s an important point. In employment law and IR35 there’s a “control test”. Crudely employees are subject to a fairly high level of control, though clearly this does vary depending on the circumstances in each case. Contractors necessarily have more freedom. The more control the BBC exercise over Lineker there is a possibility, albeit remote, that HMRC may come and ask it for PAYE and employers NI contributions rather than chasing Lineker.
This is why most companies have used blanket decisions to put all their contractors inside IR35 rather than run the risk of being caught out by HMRC. I know that is not how they are supposed to work but that is what almost all companies are doing irrespective of whether the contractor should be inside or outside as far as HMRC are concerned.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
I think it was particularly popular with one section of society.
Actually it was popular with mostly everyone.
So if everyone was using the same language, he was comparing it to the language used by the Nazis in the 30s.
What?
That’s like saying if I said language used in 2003 by mostly everyone actually means I was referring to Labour.
Nonsense point.
The nonsense point is to suggest that all aspects of German society were saying the same thing. No doubt there was a spectrum of views, but as Lineker's tweet was talking about an "immeasurably cruel policy", it's safe to assume he was referring to the most extreme views at the time.
It's obvious to everyone but apparently you that he was referring to the Nazi government. Remember he was referring to the language used by Germany (i.e. the government), not used in Germany.
It’s not just me. Read this thread and there are people agreeing with me.
You are saying he said something he didn’t say. He said 1930s Germany that is it. Never said the Nazis.
It's clear what he meant by the language "used by Germany in the 30s". Of the four governments to exist in Germany in the 1930s, which one do you think he is referring to?
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Who was using the language to which you are referring to in 1930s Germany? Was it: (a) The German Communist Party? (b) The Social Democrat Party? (c) The Nazi Party?
Not fair. Plenty of others, such as the Konservative Volkspartei.
This really isn't complicated All of the following are true.
1. The government's Illegal Immigration Bill is unworkable, probably contrary to international law, and cynical. 2. It is however right that the boats need to be discouraged, the issue isn't the principle, but the practicalities. 3. Yes, some of the language used by some ministers is unacceptable. 4. No it's not like the language used by the Nazis. 5. However Gary Lineker should be perfectly free, in a private capacity outside his role on TV, to make the argument that it is 6. The BBC has made an unholy mess of this.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
Not so much, as there were far fewer immigrants. Anti-semetism however was widespread in many countries, not limited to Germany.
They were anti immigrants including and mostly referring to Jews.
Sorry but that’s not correct. Most Jews were natives to their countries.
The language used was about Jews flooding into Germany.
No it wasn't. The Jews in Germany had mostly all been there for a very long time. They were not immigrants into Germany.
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.
Nah that's bullshit. Remember I am batting against the PB Tories on this as far as getting rid of Lineker goes. But even I recognise he was dog whistling and expected everyone to read his tweet as comparing the Tories with the Nazis. Indeed if you spent a few minutes on social media and saw all the stuff being dredged up from the 1930s (Daily Mail commentaries etc) by those who agree with Lineker you would see that every one of them thinks he was explicitly comparing the Tories with the Nazis.
Deep down it is obvious you think that as well. Have the courage of your convictions. There are far more honest ways to defend Lineker than pretending he has been misrepresented.
Richard I didn’t read it like that and I am being honest by saying so.
You are a good chap but I don’t like the implication I am lying.
Lying is too strong a word. You are fooling yourself.
And you are wrong about Lineker as well. He knew exactly what he was saying and how it would be interpreted, particularly by those who are sympathetic to his views. It was a dog whistle just as blatant as any the scumbag Tories have done over the last decade.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
I think it was particularly popular with one section of society.
Actually it was popular with mostly everyone.
So if everyone was using the same language, he was comparing it to the language used by the Nazis in the 30s.
For goodness sake this place can be so frustrating. You have made the assumption of which you write, nonetheless you are likely as not, correct. He is clearly alluding to the practice of "othering" which was an early characteristic propaganda tool (which incidentally was later ramped up) used by Hitler and his fellow travellers.
"Othering" is defined as: "to view or treat (a person or group of people) as intrinsically different from and alien to oneself". Now tell me that was not the purpose of Braverman's rhetoric. Lineker has not mentioned or alluded to what that policy led to. He is cautioning that such scapegoating can have further ramifications. He does not call Braverman a Nazi.
This really isn't complicated All of the following are true.
1. The government's Illegal Immigration Bill is unworkable, probably contrary to international law, and cynical. 2. It is however right that the boats need to be discouraged, the issue isn't the principle, but the practicalities. 3. Yes, some of the language used by some ministers is unacceptable. 4. No it's not like the language used by the Nazis. 5. However Gary Lineker should be perfectly free, in a private capacity outside his role on TV, to make the argument that it is 6. The BBC has made an unholy mess of this.
Bang on. Good, hopefully now we can move on to another topic, like the SNP or HS2.
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
The free speech brigade want him cancelled.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
All because the Tories don’t like him.
That’s an important point. In employment law and IR35 there’s a “control test”. Crudely employees are subject to a fairly high level of control, though clearly this does vary depending on the circumstances in each case. Contractors necessarily have more freedom. The more control the BBC exercise over Lineker there is a possibility, albeit remote, that HMRC may come and ask it for PAYE and employers NI contributions rather than chasing Lineker.
This is why most companies have used blanket decisions to put all their contractors inside IR35 rather than run the risk of being caught out by HMRC. I know that is not how they are supposed to work but that is what almost all companies are doing irrespective of whether the contractor should be inside or outside as far as HMRC are concerned.
The whole issue of employment status (both for statutory protection and for tax purposes) is a mess and has been for decades.
This really isn't complicated All of the following are true.
1. The government's Illegal Immigration Bill is unworkable, probably contrary to international law, and cynical. 2. It is however right that the boats need to be discouraged, the issue isn't the principle, but the practicalities. 3. Yes, some of the language used by some ministers is unacceptable. 4. No it's not like the language used by the Nazis. 5. However Gary Lineker should be perfectly free, in a private capacity outside his role on TV, to make the argument that it is 6. The BBC has made an unholy mess of this.
Bang on. Good, hopefully now we can move on to another topic, like the SNP or HS2.
It's amusing and depressing at the same time that this has basically been the sole topic of conversation for the last few days. Probably a more pleasant experience than our five-thousandth discussion about indyref though.
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
The free speech brigade want him cancelled.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
All because the Tories don’t like him.
That’s an important point. In employment law and IR35 there’s a “control test”. Crudely employees are subject to a fairly high level of control, though clearly this does vary depending on the circumstances in each case. Contractors necessarily have more freedom. The more control the BBC exercise over Lineker there is a possibility, albeit remote, that HMRC may come and ask it for PAYE and employers NI contributions rather than chasing Lineker.
This is why most companies have used blanket decisions to put all their contractors inside IR35 rather than run the risk of being caught out by HMRC. I know that is not how they are supposed to work but that is what almost all companies are doing irrespective of whether the contractor should be inside or outside as far as HMRC are concerned.
Interestingly this is not my experience recently. I have had to ask to work inside IR35, not outside, and get the contracts redone accordingly.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
Not so much, as there were far fewer immigrants. Anti-semetism however was widespread in many countries, not limited to Germany.
They were anti immigrants including and mostly referring to Jews.
Sorry but that’s not correct. Most Jews were natives to their countries.
The language used was about Jews flooding into Germany.
No it wasn't. The Jews in Germany had mostly all been there for a very long time. They were not immigrants into Germany.
The language used aimed to dehumanise and make Jews seem like they weren’t human. That despite being in Germany a long time they had no right to be there. They used fear that more would come from elsewhere as Germany had a large Jewish population.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
Not so much, as there were far fewer immigrants. Anti-semetism however was widespread in many countries, not limited to Germany.
They were anti immigrants including and mostly referring to Jews.
Sorry but that’s not correct. Most Jews were natives to their countries.
The language used was about Jews flooding into Germany.
No it wasn't. The Jews in Germany had mostly all been there for a very long time. They were not immigrants into Germany.
I think many German Jews were (like British Jews of the time) often migrant Jewish communities fleeing the czarist pogroms in the late 19th century.
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
The free speech brigade want him cancelled.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
All because the Tories don’t like him.
That’s an important point. In employment law and IR35 there’s a “control test”. Crudely employees are subject to a fairly high level of control, though clearly this does vary depending on the circumstances in each case. Contractors necessarily have more freedom. The more control the BBC exercise over Lineker there is a possibility, albeit remote, that HMRC may come and ask it for PAYE and employers NI contributions rather than chasing Lineker.
This is why most companies have used blanket decisions to put all their contractors inside IR35 rather than run the risk of being caught out by HMRC. I know that is not how they are supposed to work but that is what almost all companies are doing irrespective of whether the contractor should be inside or outside as far as HMRC are concerned.
The whole issue of employment status (both for statutory protection and for tax purposes) is a mess and has been for decades.
I was surprised to find out it was the BBC that was asking or advising presenters to use this tax avoidance structure. I had assumed it was the other way around.
The attempt by opposition MPs to conflate the Gary Lineker controversy with the Richard Sharp controversy is an absurdity, a category error.
If I were an opposition MP, I'd be conflating like crazy, of course. What an open goal!
The two may not actually be connected, but the latter sets to context to any time the BBC might even appear to be bending to government pressure and they should have known that.
It's yet another reason having such a compromised individual as Chairman is such a bad idea.
Nobody wants open borders. This is another nonsense invented by the right.
What we are saying is that the Tory policies are and will not work. They haven’t worked for 13 years so it is unlikely they’ll suddenly become competent on this issue.
I start from seeing these people as human beings. But then I’m a brainwashed twat apparently
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.
Interesting but the comprehensive EU wide agreement was exactly what Macron and Sunak spoke about and would not require our membership of the EU
However, Macrons EPC is already up and running with Spain hosting it this year and UK in 24 and membership would an excellent compromise
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Who was using the language to which you are referring to in 1930s Germany? Was it: (a) The German Communist Party? (b) The Social Democrat Party? (c) The Nazi Party?
Not fair. Plenty of others, such as the Konservative Volkspartei.
And there's an important point. Putting Nazis to one side, there were other German politicians who were way too tolerant of Nazis and Nazidom and said "OK, but" when the correct answer was "no". The most effective roads to hell don't have clear signposts until it's too late.
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.
As I pointed out a few day's ago, he said 1930s Germany, not 1940s Germany, so he was drawing a distinction between the period under the Nazis when the final solution was in full swing, and the gas chambers were operational, and the period before that, to invoke the slippery slope argument.
if he'd said Nazis then he wouldn't have been able to draw that distinction, but it was Nazis in the 1930s and Nazis in the 1940s all the same.
I think we’re all over-analysing. One tweet, sent in a moment of exasperation that people were telling him he shouldn’t express an opinion on the Rwanda policy. The 30s German reference was throwaway, yes a bit Godwin, but I doubt he took more than a couple of minutes to compose it.
Twitter is full of bombast and exaggeration. We’re all analysing it as if it’s Xi’s foreign policy speech at the latest national congress of the Chinese Communist party.
That's fair enough, but it's still the case that a reference to 1930s Germany was a reference to the Nazis, and not to some other minor party of the right-wing in late Weimar Republic Germany.
Ah, that's a shame. Was sorry to see Northern_Al banned.
Talks with Northern_Al are said to be "moving in the right direction" in an effort to reinstate him before tomorrow night's big 'Was the Lab Leak caused by Brexit?' debate.
If you think I'm going to apologise, think again.
"Unfortunately, we will be broadcasting the snooker highlights tonight without the able assistance of our northern correspondent based in Cloggin-le-Draines . . ."
This really isn't complicated All of the following are true.
1. The government's Illegal Immigration Bill is unworkable, probably contrary to international law, and cynical. 2. It is however right that the boats need to be discouraged, the issue isn't the principle, but the practicalities. 3. Yes, some of the language used by some ministers is unacceptable. 4. No it's not like the language used by the Nazis. 5. However Gary Lineker should be perfectly free, in a private capacity outside his role on TV, to make the argument that it is 6. The BBC has made an unholy mess of this.
Spot on. Trouble is, that's not a 3 word slogan. And "You're all idiots" might not go down well.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Who was using the language to which you are referring to in 1930s Germany? Was it: (a) The German Communist Party? (b) The Social Democrat Party? (c) The Nazi Party?
Not fair. Plenty of others, such as the Konservative Volkspartei.
And there's an important point. Putting Nazis to one side, there were other German politicians who were way too tolerant of Nazis and Nazidom and said "OK, but" when the correct answer was "no". The most effective roads to hell don't have clear signposts until it's too late.
I think Gary’s point to be honest was about language and attitudes used in Germany prior to the Nazis. He was trying to say that things can start at a certain place and escalate because certain language and attitudes become commonplace.
That is still not saying the policy was Nazi or the Tories are Nazis, though.
Gary Lineker has a track record as a shit-stirrer against this Government. (I don't know how far back that extends.)
Fair enough. He can say that if he wishes.
However, he does have contractual restrictions placed upon him by his employer as to what he can say. He would probably be in deep shit if he just came out and said "this Government is as bad as the Nazis in the 1930s in its attitude to migrants." So he couches it in terms that he thinks gives him an out.
But really, it doesn't. There is no semantic difference between what he says and what people were intended to interpret him as saying. He hasn't taken the opportunity to say "that is not what I meant". Because it is what he meant.
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?
I think he was talking about language used in Germany in the 30s. As he said.
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
Language used by who in Germany in the 30s?
Lots of people?
Don't be coy now.
Anti-immigrant settlement in the 30s was pretty much ingrained in society.
Not so much, as there were far fewer immigrants. Anti-semetism however was widespread in many countries, not limited to Germany.
They were anti immigrants including and mostly referring to Jews.
Sorry but that’s not correct. Most Jews were natives to their countries.
The language used was about Jews flooding into Germany.
No it wasn't. The Jews in Germany had mostly all been there for a very long time. They were not immigrants into Germany.
The language used aimed to dehumanise and make Jews seem like they weren’t human. That despite being in Germany a long time they had no right to be there. They used fear that more would come from elsewhere as Germany had a large Jewish population.
Antisemitism was widespread across Europe, including among progressives. The Nazis did use genuinely dehumanising language which has no parallel whatsoever with anything that current ministers, or their New Labour predecessors, have said about asylum seekers.
The thing is that I don’t think Gary’s comments were dumb. I think he was spot on.
This Government dehumanises and treats immigrants like cattle.
Yes, I think he has a point. He should be allowed to make that point. The BBC has once again made itself look foolish. Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
The free speech brigade want him cancelled.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
All because the Tories don’t like him.
That’s an important point. In employment law and IR35 there’s a “control test”. Crudely employees are subject to a fairly high level of control, though clearly this does vary depending on the circumstances in each case. Contractors necessarily have more freedom. The more control the BBC exercise over Lineker there is a possibility, albeit remote, that HMRC may come and ask it for PAYE and employers NI contributions rather than chasing Lineker.
This is why most companies have used blanket decisions to put all their contractors inside IR35 rather than run the risk of being caught out by HMRC. I know that is not how they are supposed to work but that is what almost all companies are doing irrespective of whether the contractor should be inside or outside as far as HMRC are concerned.
The whole issue of employment status (both for statutory protection and for tax purposes) is a mess and has been for decades.
I was surprised to find out it was the BBC that was asking or advising presenters to use this tax avoidance structure. I had assumed it was the other way around.
That’s right. Having a contractor is far easier and cheaper than having an employee. No employers NI, no PAYE hassle, fewer statutory protections (no statutory redundancy or unfair dismissal for example). I once acted against a company in Bradford that listed all its manual labour workforce as being members of various LLPs. That didn’t end well.
This really isn't complicated All of the following are true.
1. The government's Illegal Immigration Bill is unworkable, probably contrary to international law, and cynical. 2. It is however right that the boats need to be discouraged, the issue isn't the principle, but the practicalities. 3. Yes, some of the language used by some ministers is unacceptable. 4. No it's not like the language used by the Nazis. 5. However Gary Lineker should be perfectly free, in a private capacity outside his role on TV, to make the argument that it is 6. The BBC has made an unholy mess of this.
7. Several loudmouth Tory backbenchers have the political nous to spot an open goal when they see it. And slam the ball home in a Gary Lineker stylee. 8. Unfortunately. They can't distinguish their own goal from the opposition's. 9. The Daily Mail is a fuming mess. Increasingly riling up only its own readership. Whilst being a figure of mockery to outsiders. It's a liability to the Tories. 10. Defending free speech and opposing "cancel culture" has been exposed as laughable bollocks. 11. You can be out of order and still assume the moral high ground if your opponents overstretch like a trainee contortionist on a month's work experience.
Comments
Do you disagree that the government uses such language?
https://twitter.com/ThatsSoVillage/status/1635019769744351232
Does rather incense me that people are getting many thousands of "oodles" mongrels when there are so many special breeds on the verge of extinction.
If I were an opposition MP, I'd be conflating like crazy, of course. What an open goal!
Needs the 9 Tory appointed BBC Trust members, the Head of News brought in from GBN, the DG and Chairman all to apologise to him for singling him out whilst allowing dozens of Tory Shrills to go scot free
Just as with the dodgy editing of the Queen, the Brand/Ross affair and many other issues.
Deep down it is obvious you think that as well. Have the courage of your convictions. There are far more honest ways to defend Lineker than pretending he has been misrepresented.
You are a good chap but I don’t like the implication I am lying.
That said I have low expectations of the next government.
He isn’t a BBC employee, he is no more restricted than you or I - but the BBC think they can silence a man who talks about sport and is hired as a contractor from speaking.
All because the Tories don’t like him.
If I said "Labour's policy is like 50s Russia" everyone would know what I meant, I'd have to go out of my way to explain I didn't mean Stalin.
I mean, talk about creating a hurricane out of a storm in a teacup...
And with that, good night.
I am praying for a Hung Parliament
Never had you down as stupid.
Anyway here goes. Lineker does not mention the Nazis. Nonetheless, he is clearly alluding to the notion that "othering" can lead to more sinister activities.
Lineker is a critic of this Government, he has made no secret of this. Sugar is a critic (with some justification given his creed) of Corbyn and the Corbyn Labour Party, he has made no secret of this. What is the difference?
Lineker is a critic of Qatar's human rights record, he broadcast this ON his BBC show, he was not censured. Lineker Tweets a critique of UK immigration policy, he does not comment his view on a BBC show, and likely as not he will be dismissed. Why the inconsistency?
Andrew Neil has been an unashamed lifelong Conservative, he has courted controversy from time to time, in 1992 Andrew Neil was censured by anti-Nazi groups for using David Irving to translate Joseph Goebbel's diaries. Remember that, 1992. From 2003 until 2020 Andrew Neil has presented regularly political programming for the BBC. Where is the consistency?
If I said language used in 2001 would you assume I meant by Labour? Of course not
Also Romani people
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/11234/a-hollow-victory-for-the-hollow-crown-politicalbetting-com/p3#Comment_4334549
Not with its readership. But with the broader public opinion.
Which is good for Labour.
That’s like saying if I said language used in 2003 by mostly everyone actually means I was referring to Labour.
Nonsense point.
if he'd said Nazis then he wouldn't have been able to draw that distinction, but it was Nazis in the 1930s and Nazis in the 1940s all the same.
Wonder what Keats would have made of it?
"To Autumn" may well have been a meditation on the prospects of the Champions League group stages.
Remember well, when I was student living in cheap apartment in Baton Rouge in late 1970s, where the resident manager was a Hmong guy who'd fought alongside US forces in Vietnam, he lived below me with his wife, kids and a granny. He was the only one who spoke any English, the old lady used to spread the family laundry out of the shrubbery to dry. These folks were from the back of the boondocks, transported to late 20th-century quasi-urban America.
YET ANOTHER thing this makes me think about, is the advice that Fiorello La Guardia gave to an older Italian immigrant in his law office in Greenwich Village.
The old man wanted somebody to do something to help him curb his twenty-something daughter's wild (from his old-school point of view) behavior. No way, FLG told him - this is America.
La Guardia was himself a poster child for immigration and assimilation, for the rights AND duties of immigrants as American citizens. He directly aided thousands as a US consul, as an immigration agent, and as an attorney whose clients were mostly immigrants and their children. PLUS his active advocacy - to put it mildly - for immigrants as a congressman, in the teeth of rampant (and rabid) nativism.
I'm not sure they are entirely acting in the interests of the Conservative government.
When I alluded to the Fosdyke Saga earlier I hadn't realised that Mr Tidy was no longer with us.
Happy memories of New Scientist, British Archaeology, and much else.
Now he can afford (and has) very good lawyers so the judgment will be interesting
I suspect it also has some bearing on this case and vice versa
(a) The German Communist Party?
(b) The Social Democrat Party?
(c) The Nazi Party?
That is pretty dumb media management.
But she was fine because she hated everyone equally
It's obvious to everyone but apparently you that he was referring to the Nazi government. Remember he was referring to the language used by Germany (i.e. the government), not used in Germany.
You are saying he said something he didn’t say. He said 1930s Germany that is it. Never said the Nazis.
If it were that simple I wouldn’t have a job…
Twitter is full of bombast and exaggeration. We’re all analysing it as if it’s Xi’s foreign policy speech at the latest national congress of the Chinese Communist party.
1. The government's Illegal Immigration Bill is unworkable, probably contrary to international law, and cynical.
2. It is however right that the boats need to be discouraged, the issue isn't the principle, but the practicalities.
3. Yes, some of the language used by some ministers is unacceptable.
4. No it's not like the language used by the Nazis.
5. However Gary Lineker should be perfectly free, in a private capacity outside his role on TV, to make the argument that it is
6. The BBC has made an unholy mess of this.
And you are wrong about Lineker as well. He knew exactly what he was saying and how it would be interpreted, particularly by those who are sympathetic to his views. It was a dog whistle just as blatant as any the scumbag Tories have done over the last decade.
"Othering" is defined as: "to view or treat (a person or group of people) as intrinsically different from and alien to oneself". Now tell me that was not the purpose of Braverman's rhetoric. Lineker has not mentioned or alluded to what that policy led to. He is cautioning that such scapegoating can have further ramifications. He does not call Braverman a Nazi.
It's yet another reason having such a compromised individual as Chairman is such a bad idea.
However, Macrons EPC is already up and running with Spain hosting it this year and UK in 24 and membership would an excellent compromise
That is still not saying the policy was Nazi or the Tories are Nazis, though.
Fair enough. He can say that if he wishes.
However, he does have contractual restrictions placed upon him by his employer as to what he can say. He would probably be in deep shit if he just came out and said "this Government is as bad as the Nazis in the 1930s in its attitude to migrants." So he couches it in terms that he thinks gives him an out.
But really, it doesn't. There is no semantic difference between what he says and what people were intended to interpret him as saying. He hasn't taken the opportunity to say "that is not what I meant". Because it is what he meant.
Anybody arguing otherwise is being anti-semantic.
Its easy enough to find the former:
https://www.yadvashem.org/docs/extracts-from-mein-kampf.html
Something of a QAnon paranoiac weirdness perhaps but not really Rishi Sunak.
Or are people still stuck at dehumanizing the government with allusions to Nazis without providing any evidence ?
8. Unfortunately. They can't distinguish their own goal from the opposition's.
9. The Daily Mail is a fuming mess. Increasingly riling up only its own readership. Whilst being a figure of mockery to outsiders. It's a liability to the Tories.
10. Defending free speech and opposing "cancel culture" has been exposed as laughable bollocks.
11. You can be out of order and still assume the moral high ground if your opponents overstretch like a trainee contortionist on a month's work experience.