The last few days is one of those times when you’re very grateful it’s Sunak and Hunt in charge, not Truss and Kwarteng. It’s terrifying to imagine how they would have handled the SVB situation.
In truth probably no differently since all the politicos do is front the civil servants work
The civil servants didn't do a very god job during her brief time in No10, if that were genuinely the case. It's quite conceivable that she'd have taken a libertarian 'let the chips fall where they may' line.
Of course given the ring fenced status of SVB UK, it's also possible that HSBC or another bank would have picked up fresh corpse anyway. But it could have been much messier.
Nor did she, as she didnt manage the communications. However the basis of her economic position are now looking mainstream - better tax receipts than expected, the need to encourage long term growth and productivity and reducing the admin burden on businesses. It remains to be seen what Sunak and Hunt do about this but I cant see them pushing the boat ou.
The issue with Truss/Kwarteng was not that they wanted to focus on growth, it was on how they intended to do it.
The issue with Truss/Kwarteng was their dogma and that they actually believed their own propaganda; they dismissed any warnings from anyone cautioning them against it as a sign of them being part of the conspiracy.
The BBC have strict guidelines in place for its news and current affairs employees - fair enough, state broadcaster should be seen to give us news and politics straight, without bias so we can make our own minds up.
Do you seriously think those same guidelines can apply to every singer, dancer, director, writer, janitor, tea lady? To apply those guidelines to Lineker you have to apply it to all of them too, which is not remotely doable. So why did they attempt do it?
You think tea lady has Twitter following because she works at BBC, you think Lineker only has Twitter following because works at BBC?
Mrs PtP applied for a minor post at the BBC recently. She cleaned up her social media sites before doing so, as this was clearly necessary.
The BBC have strict guidelines in place for its news and current affairs employees - fair enough, state broadcaster should be seen to give us news and politics straight, without bias so we can make our own minds up.
Do you seriously think those same guidelines can apply to every singer, dancer, director, writer, janitor, tea lady? To apply those guidelines to Lineker you have to apply it to all of them too, which is not remotely doable. So why did they attempt do it?
You think tea lady has Twitter following because she works at BBC, you think Lineker only has Twitter following because works at BBC?
Alternatively you could say overtly pissing off your client's biggest client isnt a wise move and a bit of common sense seems to be missing.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
The last few days is one of those times when you’re very grateful it’s Sunak and Hunt in charge, not Truss and Kwarteng. It’s terrifying to imagine how they would have handled the SVB situation.
In truth probably no differently since all the politicos do is front the civil servants work
The civil servants didn't do a very god job during her brief time in No10, if that were genuinely the case. It's quite conceivable that she'd have taken a libertarian 'let the chips fall where they may' line.
Of course given the ring fenced status of SVB UK, it's also possible that HSBC or another bank would have picked up fresh corpse anyway. But it could have been much messier.
Nor did she, as she didnt manage the communications. However the basis of her economic position are now looking mainstream - better tax receipts than expected, the need to encourage long term growth and productivity and reducing the admin burden on businesses. It remains to be seen what Sunak and Hunt do about this but I cant see them pushing the boat ou.
The issue with Truss/Kwarteng was not that they wanted to focus on growth, it was on how they intended to do it.
I suspect a large part of what they advocated will eventally be adopted. Their issue was they made little preparation before they launched off, which was bad management on their part.
The Yoons (adopting unfamiliar reasonable tone): Look, your Indy dream is over, we’ve all got to work together for the good of Scotland, it’s going to be Devomax all the way.
5 minutes later: HA HA WE’RE GONNAE FUCK UP YER BOTTLE RETURN SCHEME!!
'Kat Jones, the director of the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, said: “We know that there has been a lot of work behind the scenes between UK government and the Scottish government officials to establish how the Scottish systems can operate most effectively in a UK context, and so this intervention from the secretary of state feels like an attempt to disrupt deposit return.”'
That folk believe that poor, put-upon Alister Jack has been constantly trying to encourage cooperation and compromise with the SNP government only to be cruelly rebuffed suggests that they should be kept away from any bridge-sellers.
None of the trustworthy people on twitter are sharing news about Nova Kakhovka. There seems to be new footage of a special forces raid across the river in January.
What do you make of it all.
There's nothing really to make anything of. There are people on twitter who will share any old crap and make stuff up. I'm glad I had a check of what seemed like unlikely good news before celebrating. Don't know where Cicero was getting his news from, but I assume he'll trust them a bit less in future.
Although ISW was uncharacteristically quiet over night
Dr. Foxy, they should pull down statues of Llewellyn then, for agreeing to terms, reneging on them, and then losing.
In the past, there was a shitload of wars. Conquering = loot and more land to dole out. 'Oppressors' is a very modern take, especially given for a long time (centuries, I think) in England the law differed for Normans (ruling class) and the English.
Better smash the Alexander the Great statues, he didn't let the cities of the Persian Empire cast a democratic vote to decide if they wanted to be conquered or not.
Surely as someone interested in history you recognise that attitudes to aspects of history change over time? And that how people want that history to be memorialised too?
Or do you think there should still be a statue of King George in New York City?
Yes, they were built to contain the Welsh and were seen as symbols of oppression. However, since almost all of them were captured by Welsh forces at one time or another (Beaumaris is the one exception) and Harlech was actually Glyndwr's capital from 1405 to 1409, they could also be seen as symbols of liberation.
Plus, they are the finest examples of medieval military architecture not just in Britain but in the whole of Europe.
I think they are saying is use of the *images* of the castles is prima facie evidence of racist intent
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
If the BBC has bent in the wind due to perceived backbench/gov't pressure and is about to bend back because Gary's mates there have kicked up a bit of a fuss then quite honestly the entire management team needs sacking.
The Yoons (adopting unfamiliar reasonable tone): Look, your Indy dream is over, we’ve all got to work together for the good of Scotland, it’s going to be Devomax all the way.
5 minutes later: HA HA WE’RE GONNAE FUCK UP YER BOTTLE RETURN SCHEME!!
'Kat Jones, the director of the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, said: “We know that there has been a lot of work behind the scenes between UK government and the Scottish government officials to establish how the Scottish systems can operate most effectively in a UK context, and so this intervention from the secretary of state feels like an attempt to disrupt deposit return.”'
That folk believe that poor, put-upon Alister Jack has been constantly trying to encourage cooperation and compromise with the SNP government only to be cruelly rebuffed suggests that they should be kept away from any bridge-sellers.
Either that or it's a brilliant bit of passive-aggressive sarcasm, though it could also be true - despite the assertion in the thread today that Tories just do what the civil servants tell them.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
If the BBC has bent in the wind due to perceived backbench/gov't pressure and is about to bend back because Gary's mates there have kicked up a bit of a fuss then quite honestly the entire management team needs sacking.
Yes, it’s become existential for the management inserted by Johnson at the top of the BBC. I don’t expect them to leave without being pushed though.
The BBC have strict guidelines in place for its news and current affairs employees - fair enough, state broadcaster should be seen to give us news and politics straight, without bias so we can make our own minds up.
Do you seriously think those same guidelines can apply to every singer, dancer, director, writer, janitor, tea lady? To apply those guidelines to Lineker you have to apply it to all of them too, which is not remotely doable. So why did they attempt do it?
You think tea lady has Twitter following because she works at BBC, you think Lineker only has Twitter following because works at BBC?
Alternatively you could say overtly pissing off your client's biggest client isnt a wise move and a bit of common sense seems to be missing.
But the polling evidence is that more people support Lineker than the BBC Brass. Some because they agree, others because of the Voltaire principle.
It's pissed off a significant and vocal slice of the BBC audience, and it's pissed off the Mail, but if "not pissing off anyone" is the line, what BBC productions can stand?
Voting to elect the next leader of the SNP, and first minister of Scotland, begins at noon on Monday.
The three candidates have the weekend to convince the party's circa-100,000-strong membership to choose them before starting to cast their alternative votes.
They'll have until noon on 27 March to do so, after which the next head of Scotland's biggest political party will be revealed.
News coming though that confirms that the ZSU crossed the Dnipro in some size at Nova Kakhovka in the past 36 hours and that the Russian forces took some significant damage. Remains unclear if Ukrainian forces remain south of the river, but if they were to hold a beach head it would be a crisis for the Russian high command. As the grinding battle of Bakhmut continues, with staggering casualties for the Russians, the prospect of a significant Ukrainian counter offensive is clearly growing.
They need to push Russian artillery out of range of Kherson, or its levelling will mean a Phyrric victory. A bridgehead near Nova Kakhovka might mean that artillery moving eastwards. But then Ukraine can launch a massive thrust over the Dnipro at Kherson.
Russia is going to be wishing it still had those lost tens of thousands at Bakhmut.
Here we go.
See you at the Moskovsky Triumfal'niy Vorota for tea and medals. Bring your No.1 Dress.
Just for you and Topping, some real war reporting...
The BBC have strict guidelines in place for its news and current affairs employees - fair enough, state broadcaster should be seen to give us news and politics straight, without bias so we can make our own minds up.
Do you seriously think those same guidelines can apply to every singer, dancer, director, writer, janitor, tea lady? To apply those guidelines to Lineker you have to apply it to all of them too, which is not remotely doable. So why did they attempt do it?
You think tea lady has Twitter following because she works at BBC, you think Lineker only has Twitter following because works at BBC?
Alternatively you could say overtly pissing off your client's biggest client isnt a wise move and a bit of common sense seems to be missing.
But the polling evidence is that more people support Lineker than the BBC Brass. Some because they agree, others because of the Voltaire principle.
It's pissed off a significant and vocal slice of the BBC audience, and it's pissed off the Mail, but if "not pissing off anyone" is the line, what BBC productions can stand?
So what ? Thats all reaction to a problem Lineker has given his customer, he should have had more sense than to kick off the problem in the first place. Lots of people myself included have found themselves in a similar position where they have to suppress their personal views as aprt of a commercial relationship. It 's how the adult world works.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
If the BBC has bent in the wind due to perceived backbench/gov't pressure and is about to bend back because Gary's mates there have kicked up a bit of a fuss then quite honestly the entire management team needs sacking.
Yes, it’s become existential for the management inserted by Johnson at the top of the BBC. I don’t expect them to leave without being pushed though.
I think Lineker was wrong to have tweeted what he did, but he's a sports presenter not news so his twitter account shouldn't be subject to the same rules that say a Maitliss or Huw Edwards would/should have had. MOTD ain't Newsnight. I think having taken the stance they have though the BBC does probably need to stick with it or if they're going to back down have some high profile resignations (Richard Sharp needs gone with his ludicrous Boris dealings anyway)
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
If the BBC has bent in the wind due to perceived backbench/gov't pressure and is about to bend back because Gary's mates there have kicked up a bit of a fuss then quite honestly the entire management team needs sacking.
Yes, it’s become existential for the management inserted by Johnson at the top of the BBC. I don’t expect them to leave without being pushed though.
It's possible that that the decision came from the DG, but I rather suspect it was from a couple of levels down the hierarchy. And in a bureaucratic organisation like that, it might easily have been made because the person responsible thought that was what his bosses wanted, not necessarily as a result of a direct instruction.
Or it's possible that Sunak called up the DG and told him to get Lineker taken off air. But to me, that fails the "what is more likely?" test.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
If the BBC has bent in the wind due to perceived backbench/gov't pressure and is about to bend back because Gary's mates there have kicked up a bit of a fuss then quite honestly the entire management team needs sacking.
Yes, it’s become existential for the management inserted by Johnson at the top of the BBC. I don’t expect them to leave without being pushed though.
I think Lineker was wrong to have tweeted what he did, but he's a sports presenter not news so his twitter account shouldn't be subject to the same rules that say a Maitliss or Huw Edwards would/should have had. MOTD ain't Newsnight. I think having taken the stance they have though the BBC does probably need to stick with it or if they're going to back down have some high profile resignations (Richard Sharp needs gone with his ludicrous Boris dealings anyway)
Currently the BBC sports department runs the management and not the other way round.
For a country so electorally literate, force-fed manifestoes, caught up in the whirl of constant election campaigns, engulfed by constitutional debates, and where calls for another referendum and shouts of “democracy denial” have become the soundtrack of our times, the contest to crown a new leader of the SNP, and our next first minister, has exposed a surprising level of political naivety and a party at war with itself……
The next referendum is a long way off. Independence has been parked and whether the next leader is Yousaf or Forbes, this will need to be about getting back to a sense of competence in government and if that is a throwback to 2007 and operating as a minority government, then the lesson to take is that it worked for the SNP then.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
If the BBC has bent in the wind due to perceived backbench/gov't pressure and is about to bend back because Gary's mates there have kicked up a bit of a fuss then quite honestly the entire management team needs sacking.
I've liked, because clearly what you say is true, however hindsight is a wonderful thing. In both cases they have come under huge pressure. I'm sure they are all sitting there going whoops, we cocked that up didn't we?
Of course they should never have been put under that pressure in the first place. if they themselves thought Lineker was going to far, it could probably have been dealt with quietly, but no the MPs had to make a fuss and interfere in the running of the BBC.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
If the BBC has bent in the wind due to perceived backbench/gov't pressure and is about to bend back because Gary's mates there have kicked up a bit of a fuss then quite honestly the entire management team needs sacking.
Yes, it’s become existential for the management inserted by Johnson at the top of the BBC. I don’t expect them to leave without being pushed though.
I think Lineker was wrong to have tweeted what he did, but he's a sports presenter not news so his twitter account shouldn't be subject to the same rules that say a Maitliss or Huw Edwards would/should have had. MOTD ain't Newsnight. I think having taken the stance they have though the BBC does probably need to stick with it or if they're going to back down have some high profile resignations (Richard Sharp needs gone with his ludicrous Boris dealings anyway)
Currently the BBC sports department runs the management and not the other way round.
Unsustainable imo
Agree, but that is the fault of the management. It is also the fault of the Tory MPs who put the management under such pressure.
Dr. Foxy, they should pull down statues of Llewellyn then, for agreeing to terms, reneging on them, and then losing.
In the past, there was a shitload of wars. Conquering = loot and more land to dole out. 'Oppressors' is a very modern take, especially given for a long time (centuries, I think) in England the law differed for Normans (ruling class) and the English.
Better smash the Alexander the Great statues, he didn't let the cities of the Persian Empire cast a democratic vote to decide if they wanted to be conquered or not.
Surely as someone interested in history you recognise that attitudes to aspects of history change over time? And that how people want that history to be memorialised too?
Or do you think there should still be a statue of King George in New York City?
Yes, they were built to contain the Welsh and were seen as symbols of oppression. However, since almost all of them were captured by Welsh forces at one time or another (Beaumaris is the one exception) and Harlech was actually Glyndwr's capital from 1405 to 1409, they could also be seen as symbols of liberation.
Plus, they are the finest examples of medieval military architecture not just in Britain but in the whole of Europe.
I think they are saying is use of the *images* of the castles is prima facie evidence of racist intent
Obviously castles were usually built as symbols of oppression. And the ring of steel in North Wales is just one example. What has Drakeford been saying about the castles? I can’t find a reference anywhere.
And good morning, one and all!
Just an afterthought, will Leon be back today or in some other guise?
None of the trustworthy people on twitter are sharing news about Nova Kakhovka. There seems to be new footage of a special forces raid across the river in January.
What do you make of it all.
There's nothing really to make anything of. There are people on twitter who will share any old crap and make stuff up. I'm glad I had a check of what seemed like unlikely good news before celebrating. Don't know where Cicero was getting his news from, but I assume he'll trust them a bit less in future.
Although ISW was uncharacteristically quiet over night
They thought it was a good time to put together a timeline of the conflict between Wagner and the Russian Army. Doesn't sound like a period of frenetic activity during which they are trying to establish the true extent of a recent Ukrainian advance.
Hopefully the next couple of hours will see me proved wrong with copious videos showing Ukrainian flags being flown in Nova Kakhovka, but I think we chalk this one up to idiot rumours. I remember the claims of a Ukrainian advance into Horlivka a year ago, or the panic that Kyiv was about to be encircled.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
That’s right - at this point in the one you need balance sheet strength to kill contagion risk. They are not worrying about strengthening competitor banks right now.
But if BoL is as good as you say and HSBC as bad they can capture the clients over time
News coming though that confirms that the ZSU crossed the Dnipro in some size at Nova Kakhovka in the past 36 hours and that the Russian forces took some significant damage. Remains unclear if Ukrainian forces remain south of the river, but if they were to hold a beach head it would be a crisis for the Russian high command. As the grinding battle of Bakhmut continues, with staggering casualties for the Russians, the prospect of a significant Ukrainian counter offensive is clearly growing.
They need to push Russian artillery out of range of Kherson, or its levelling will mean a Phyrric victory. A bridgehead near Nova Kakhovka might mean that artillery moving eastwards. But then Ukraine can launch a massive thrust over the Dnipro at Kherson.
Russia is going to be wishing it still had those lost tens of thousands at Bakhmut.
Here we go.
See you at the Moskovsky Triumfal'niy Vorota for tea and medals. Bring your No.1 Dress.
Just for you and Topping, some real war reporting...
He's not really "brave" is he. He's got no fucking choice.
I have noticed that the tenor of the Ukrainian agit-prop on socials has changed a bit over the last few months. The route of transmission is the same, it originates on Telegram and then is amplified by propogation to Facebook, Reddit and Twitter but the content is now different. It used to be all seriously wounded Russians bleeding out in muddy holes as they get peppered with drone dropped grenades. Now it's photogenic young law students with floppy hair who got a gut full of shrapnel while defending a strategically vital bus stop in Bakhmut and puppies made homeless by Kinzhal strikes. Definitely trying to work the pity angle more lately.
If you track r/combatfootage you’ll get all the drone dropped grenade footage your heart desires.
(I wouldn’t personally do that though; watching that stuff is bad for the soul.)
News coming though that confirms that the ZSU crossed the Dnipro in some size at Nova Kakhovka in the past 36 hours and that the Russian forces took some significant damage. Remains unclear if Ukrainian forces remain south of the river, but if they were to hold a beach head it would be a crisis for the Russian high command. As the grinding battle of Bakhmut continues, with staggering casualties for the Russians, the prospect of a significant Ukrainian counter offensive is clearly growing.
They need to push Russian artillery out of range of Kherson, or its levelling will mean a Phyrric victory. A bridgehead near Nova Kakhovka might mean that artillery moving eastwards. But then Ukraine can launch a massive thrust over the Dnipro at Kherson.
Russia is going to be wishing it still had those lost tens of thousands at Bakhmut.
Here we go.
See you at the Moskovsky Triumfal'niy Vorota for tea and medals. Bring your No.1 Dress.
Just for you and Topping, some real war reporting...
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
If the BBC has bent in the wind due to perceived backbench/gov't pressure and is about to bend back because Gary's mates there have kicked up a bit of a fuss then quite honestly the entire management team needs sacking.
Yes, it’s become existential for the management inserted by Johnson at the top of the BBC. I don’t expect them to leave without being pushed though.
I think Lineker was wrong to have tweeted what he did, but he's a sports presenter not news so his twitter account shouldn't be subject to the same rules that say a Maitliss or Huw Edwards would/should have had. MOTD ain't Newsnight. I think having taken the stance they have though the BBC does probably need to stick with it or if they're going to back down have some high profile resignations (Richard Sharp needs gone with his ludicrous Boris dealings anyway)
Currently the BBC sports department runs the management and not the other way round.
Unsustainable imo
Agree, but that is the fault of the management. It is also the fault of the Tory MPs who put the management under such pressure.
Well that's your view, but to me the whole thing kicked off with GL winding up MPs. He cant exactly say he was taken aback given his track record.
Dr. Foxy, they should pull down statues of Llewellyn then, for agreeing to terms, reneging on them, and then losing.
In the past, there was a shitload of wars. Conquering = loot and more land to dole out. 'Oppressors' is a very modern take, especially given for a long time (centuries, I think) in England the law differed for Normans (ruling class) and the English.
Better smash the Alexander the Great statues, he didn't let the cities of the Persian Empire cast a democratic vote to decide if they wanted to be conquered or not.
Surely as someone interested in history you recognise that attitudes to aspects of history change over time? And that how people want that history to be memorialised too?
Or do you think there should still be a statue of King George in New York City?
Yes, they were built to contain the Welsh and were seen as symbols of oppression. However, since almost all of them were captured by Welsh forces at one time or another (Beaumaris is the one exception) and Harlech was actually Glyndwr's capital from 1405 to 1409, they could also be seen as symbols of liberation.
Plus, they are the finest examples of medieval military architecture not just in Britain but in the whole of Europe.
I think they are saying is use of the *images* of the castles is prima facie evidence of racist intent
I am an ardent Welsh Nationalist but love the castles - they are a reminder of how England tried to subjugate Wales, and 'despite of everyone and everything - we are still here'. As long as they fly the Welsh Dragon (Y Ddraig Goch) and not the Union Rag (Papur Cachu) I am very pleased with them.
Anyone who feels that insistence on the right to freedom of speech is 'petulant', simply because it's from someone who criticised the government, doesn't have much respect for the concept.
Of course not, which is why I have repeatedly defended in discussion here linekers right to his views and free speech 🙄
However this has gone beyond that now. It is becoming a stand off where the BBC is effectively disproving the old adage that no one is bigger than the corporation.
The DG and the Chairman must go then.
There are two separate issues. One is very straightforward. The Chairman is plainly a political appointee, so the Corporation will always be in an awkward position when questions of impartiality arise.
The other is whether the Corporation can sanction staff and contributors who cross certain lines when commenting publicly. I'm agnostic on that, but such lines must apply equally to all. That seems to be the problem here. One thinks of, say, Clarkson and Neil, and then has to ask 'How different to Lineker?'. The Beeb has to untwist its knickers on that one going forward for sure.
How does it get itself out of the immediate mess? I'm not sure. If the DG has played a part in creating it, he should resign, but probably won't, and really that one is not big potatoes.
Clarkson’s big show is on Amazon - he’s not associated with the BBC in the same way
Similarly Neil has multiple other jobs and just does the occasional work for them
The difference is - as far as I’m aware - Lineker’s main gig and profile is completely associated with the BBC
(For those people who are critical of Neil having a political view point I think there is a difference between interview/opinion shows and news reporting. Fundamentally if you are watching Neil’s show you are expecting political debate. The issue is that Lineker is (a) associated with the BBC and (b) was talking to a broad group of not very politically involved people - so there is more risk of association
Yes, I'm not saying the cases are identical, SW. Each should be taken on its own merits.
All I'm suggesting is that the current rules are unclear and there appears to be a sense that they are not being applied fairly and impartially.
There is also a strong sense that the Chairman is not impartial either, but that's a different matter.
The chairman of the bbc has rarely been impartial. It doesn’t matter - this has been a political takedown attempt
The rules seem reasonable to be honest - it’s the enforcement that’s been patchy at best
The BBC have strict guidelines in place for its news and current affairs employees - fair enough, state broadcaster should be seen to give us news and politics straight, without bias so we can make our own minds up.
Do you seriously think those same guidelines can apply to every singer, dancer, director, writer, janitor, tea lady? To apply those guidelines to Lineker you have to apply it to all of them too, which is not remotely doable. So why did they attempt do it?
You think tea lady has Twitter following because she works at BBC, you think Lineker only has Twitter following because works at BBC?
Alternatively you could say overtly pissing off your client's biggest client isnt a wise move and a bit of common sense seems to be missing.
But the polling evidence is that more people support Lineker than the BBC Brass. Some because they agree, others because of the Voltaire principle.
It's pissed off a significant and vocal slice of the BBC audience, and it's pissed off the Mail, but if "not pissing off anyone" is the line, what BBC productions can stand?
Also in the wider context of a year or two back - Tories:
"1. How dare those footballers have any opinion on statues/BLM kneeling/school food!! Cancel them!!" *said team reaches finals in Euros* "2. How wonderful our brave boys* are", waves flag of St George, places flare up bum ...
So the footie community can be forgiven a degree of scepticism a priori ...
*Mind, girls did better. But I'm not sure they had as much attention.
The BBC have strict guidelines in place for its news and current affairs employees - fair enough, state broadcaster should be seen to give us news and politics straight, without bias so we can make our own minds up.
Do you seriously think those same guidelines can apply to every singer, dancer, director, writer, janitor, tea lady? To apply those guidelines to Lineker you have to apply it to all of them too, which is not remotely doable. So why did they attempt do it?
You think tea lady has Twitter following because she works at BBC, you think Lineker only has Twitter following because works at BBC?
Alternatively you could say overtly pissing off your client's biggest client isnt a wise move and a bit of common sense seems to be missing.
But the polling evidence is that more people support Lineker than the BBC Brass. Some because they agree, others because of the Voltaire principle.
It's pissed off a significant and vocal slice of the BBC audience, and it's pissed off the Mail, but if "not pissing off anyone" is the line, what BBC productions can stand?
So what ? Thats all reaction to a problem Lineker has given his customer, he should have had more sense than to kick off the problem in the first place. Lots of people myself included have found themselves in a similar position where they have to suppress their personal views as aprt of a commercial relationship. It 's how the adult world works.
It's very evidently not how broadcasting works, though, as the license to opinionate given to so many other BBC faces makes clear. In the adult world, management sets clear rules which are applied consistently. Though there are plenty of adults who fail that test.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
Two very good points.
a) First degree Streisand effect. Tory right-wingers have picked a fight with the BBC and Lineker, forgetting how that can back-fire.
b) I have also been struck by HY's silence on this one. It's puzzling given the corners he regularly paints himself into in defence of the Tories.
Voting to elect the next leader of the SNP, and first minister of Scotland, begins at noon on Monday.
The three candidates have the weekend to convince the party's circa-100,000-strong membership to choose them before starting to cast their alternative votes.
They'll have until noon on 27 March to do so, after which the next head of Scotland's biggest political party will be revealed.
They will not admit the real number of members, keeping it as over 100K to make sure their boy wins. Be funny if someone reveals the real data and numbers of members is less than votes, though I am sure the numbers will be in safe keeping somewhere.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
That’s right - at this point in the one you need balance sheet strength to kill contagion risk. They are not worrying about strengthening competitor banks right now.
But if BoL is as good as you say and HSBC as bad they can capture the clients over time
They're not sticking with HSBC, that's for sure. Though right now the feeling will mostly be of relief and then over time if HSBC fuck with the formula (and as @TOPPING rightly points out, they absolutely will) the customers will move to the UKs own version of SVB rather than stick around with HSBC being told how everything is impossible and that £1m is a big loan.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
Two very good points.
a) First degree Streisand effect. Tory right-wingers have picked a fight with the BBC and Lineker, forgetting how that can back-fire.
b) I have also been struck by HY's silence on this one. It's puzzling given the corners he regularly paints himself into in defence of the Tories.
We've been discussing other things too, not just the Beeb, so perhaps he is simply away or observing the Sabbath.
The BBC have strict guidelines in place for its news and current affairs employees - fair enough, state broadcaster should be seen to give us news and politics straight, without bias so we can make our own minds up.
Do you seriously think those same guidelines can apply to every singer, dancer, director, writer, janitor, tea lady? To apply those guidelines to Lineker you have to apply it to all of them too, which is not remotely doable. So why did they attempt do it?
You think tea lady has Twitter following because she works at BBC, you think Lineker only has Twitter following because works at BBC?
Alternatively you could say overtly pissing off your client's biggest client isnt a wise move and a bit of common sense seems to be missing.
Right-wing Tory MPs and the Daily Mail are the BBC's biggest client? I think not.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
If the BBC has bent in the wind due to perceived backbench/gov't pressure and is about to bend back because Gary's mates there have kicked up a bit of a fuss then quite honestly the entire management team needs sacking.
Yes, it’s become existential for the management inserted by Johnson at the top of the BBC. I don’t expect them to leave without being pushed though.
It's possible that that the decision came from the DG, but I rather suspect it was from a couple of levels down the hierarchy. And in a bureaucratic organisation like that, it might easily have been made because the person responsible thought that was what his bosses wanted, not necessarily as a result of a direct instruction.
Or it's possible that Sunak called up the DG and told him to get Lineker taken off air. But to me, that fails the "what is more likely?" test.
That Sunak call would have leaked by now, if it had happened.
The idea of some Tory coup at the Beeb seems to have an absence of evidence. That some employees/contractors want to take down Boris's appointees - but have to date failed - might be a more worthwhile angle to persue.
None of the trustworthy people on twitter are sharing news about Nova Kakhovka. There seems to be new footage of a special forces raid across the river in January.
What do you make of it all.
There's nothing really to make anything of. There are people on twitter who will share any old crap and make stuff up. I'm glad I had a check of what seemed like unlikely good news before celebrating. Don't know where Cicero was getting his news from, but I assume he'll trust them a bit less in future.
Although ISW was uncharacteristically quiet over night
They thought it was a good time to put together a timeline of the conflict between Wagner and the Russian Army. Doesn't sound like a period of frenetic activity during which they are trying to establish the true extent of a recent Ukrainian advance.
Hopefully the next couple of hours will see me proved wrong with copious videos showing Ukrainian flags being flown in Nova Kakhovka, but I think we chalk this one up to idiot rumours. I remember the claims of a Ukrainian advance into Horlivka a year ago, or the panic that Kyiv was about to be encircled.
My suspicion has always been that ISW has very good sources on the Ukrainian side - they seem to push an agenda to stiffen US support. They have gone quiet on some topics - eg Kherson - in the past
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
As a result of this story people in Germany have learnt that:
1 Lineker works for the BBC as a football pundit. 2 he sometimes tweets his disapproval of government policies (that nobody in Germany has heard of otherwise). 3 the Conservatives have put party donors and members in charge of the BBC. 4 the current BBC management is willing to wreck its reputation for editorial independence - which it still has for a lot of people outside the UK - if the governing party complains about a tweet from a sports presenter. It's odd that the BBC is willing to risk its reputation over such a trivial thing, but as Boris Johnson is involved in the story people aren't surprised.
Of course the only reason why this has made the news here is because Lineker scored lots of goals for England. Probably nobody cares very much about the BBC's international reputation, but I think they should, it's a real asset.
I would like to pay a tribute to all those posters last night including @TheScreamingEagles , @MaxPB and others who addressed the SVB crisis in such an informative manner helping many of us understand the crisis
It seems Sunak and Hunt have averted an immediate problem and again indicates just how different they are to Johnson and Truss
Indeed on the Lineker issue Sunak seems to have sealed Sharp's fate this morning by publicly failing to back him
None of the trustworthy people on twitter are sharing news about Nova Kakhovka. There seems to be new footage of a special forces raid across the river in January.
What do you make of it all.
There's nothing really to make anything of. There are people on twitter who will share any old crap and make stuff up. I'm glad I had a check of what seemed like unlikely good news before celebrating. Don't know where Cicero was getting his news from, but I assume he'll trust them a bit less in future.
Although ISW was uncharacteristically quiet over night
They thought it was a good time to put together a timeline of the conflict between Wagner and the Russian Army. Doesn't sound like a period of frenetic activity during which they are trying to establish the true extent of a recent Ukrainian advance.
Hopefully the next couple of hours will see me proved wrong with copious videos showing Ukrainian flags being flown in Nova Kakhovka, but I think we chalk this one up to idiot rumours. I remember the claims of a Ukrainian advance into Horlivka a year ago, or the panic that Kyiv was about to be encircled.
The BBC have strict guidelines in place for its news and current affairs employees - fair enough, state broadcaster should be seen to give us news and politics straight, without bias so we can make our own minds up.
Do you seriously think those same guidelines can apply to every singer, dancer, director, writer, janitor, tea lady? To apply those guidelines to Lineker you have to apply it to all of them too, which is not remotely doable. So why did they attempt do it?
You think tea lady has Twitter following because she works at BBC, you think Lineker only has Twitter following because works at BBC?
Alternatively you could say overtly pissing off your client's biggest client isnt a wise move and a bit of common sense seems to be missing.
But the polling evidence is that more people support Lineker than the BBC Brass. Some because they agree, others because of the Voltaire principle.
It's pissed off a significant and vocal slice of the BBC audience, and it's pissed off the Mail, but if "not pissing off anyone" is the line, what BBC productions can stand?
So what ? Thats all reaction to a problem Lineker has given his customer, he should have had more sense than to kick off the problem in the first place. Lots of people myself included have found themselves in a similar position where they have to suppress their personal views as aprt of a commercial relationship. It 's how the adult world works.
It's very evidently not how broadcasting works, though, as the license to opinionate given to so many other BBC faces makes clear. In the adult world, management sets clear rules which are applied consistently. Though there are plenty of adults who fail that test.
Lineker is the Boris Johnson of football commentary.
In my experience the corporate rule is troublemakers get sidelined however big they are. Lineker and his mates will get quietly dropped when it comes to contract renewals, No manager in his right mind is going to want to manage an band of prima donnas who can undermine their authority, which is where things are atm. He's damaged goods.
As for the rules comment, thats what it says in the handbook but its certainly not been my experience; if your face fits the rules are interpreted in your favour and vice versa. Ive seen it too many times.
None of the trustworthy people on twitter are sharing news about Nova Kakhovka. There seems to be new footage of a special forces raid across the river in January.
What do you make of it all.
There's nothing really to make anything of. There are people on twitter who will share any old crap and make stuff up. I'm glad I had a check of what seemed like unlikely good news before celebrating. Don't know where Cicero was getting his news from, but I assume he'll trust them a bit less in future.
Although ISW was uncharacteristically quiet over night
They thought it was a good time to put together a timeline of the conflict between Wagner and the Russian Army. Doesn't sound like a period of frenetic activity during which they are trying to establish the true extent of a recent Ukrainian advance.
Hopefully the next couple of hours will see me proved wrong with copious videos showing Ukrainian flags being flown in Nova Kakhovka, but I think we chalk this one up to idiot rumours. I remember the claims of a Ukrainian advance into Horlivka a year ago, or the panic that Kyiv was about to be encircled.
"idiot rumours..."?
"IDIOT RUMOURS"???
The quality of the tweets pushing this "news" on twitter is very low. Definitely a big step down from "overenthusiastic rumours".
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
If the BBC has bent in the wind due to perceived backbench/gov't pressure and is about to bend back because Gary's mates there have kicked up a bit of a fuss then quite honestly the entire management team needs sacking.
Yes, it’s become existential for the management inserted by Johnson at the top of the BBC. I don’t expect them to leave without being pushed though.
It's possible that that the decision came from the DG, but I rather suspect it was from a couple of levels down the hierarchy. And in a bureaucratic organisation like that, it might easily have been made because the person responsible thought that was what his bosses wanted, not necessarily as a result of a direct instruction.
Or it's possible that Sunak called up the DG and told him to get Lineker taken off air. But to me, that fails the "what is more likely?" test.
That Sunak call would have leaked by now, if it had happened.
The idea of some Tory coup at the Beeb seems to have an absence of evidence. That some employees/contractors want to take down Boris's appointees - but have to date failed - might be a more worthwhile angle to persue.
They managed to cleverly make Sharp look bad by tricking him into donating half a million quid to the Tory party and into helping Johnson get a 800k loan that he forgot to mention. The devious bastards.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
As a result of this story people in Germany have learnt that:
1 Lineker works for the BBC as a football pundit. 2 he sometimes tweets his disapproval of government policies (that nobody in Germany has heard of otherwise). 3 the Conservatives have put party donors and members in charge of the BBC. 4 the current BBC management is willing to wreck its reputation for editorial independence - which it still has for a lot of people outside the UK - if the governing party complains about a tweet from a sports presenter. It's odd that the BBC is willing to risk its reputation over such a trivial thing, but as Boris Johnson is involved in the story people aren't surprised.
Of course the only reason why this has made the news here is because Lineker scored lots of goals for England. Probably nobody cares very much about the BBC's international reputation, but I think they should, it's a real asset.
My brother lives in Niedersachsen
He had no idea of the Lineker farrago, cant see it having that much traction with the german public.
None of the trustworthy people on twitter are sharing news about Nova Kakhovka. There seems to be new footage of a special forces raid across the river in January.
What do you make of it all.
There's nothing really to make anything of. There are people on twitter who will share any old crap and make stuff up. I'm glad I had a check of what seemed like unlikely good news before celebrating. Don't know where Cicero was getting his news from, but I assume he'll trust them a bit less in future.
I think a raid did take place, not sure it was more than that, which I also mentioned in my post.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
If the BBC has bent in the wind due to perceived backbench/gov't pressure and is about to bend back because Gary's mates there have kicked up a bit of a fuss then quite honestly the entire management team needs sacking.
Yes, it’s become existential for the management inserted by Johnson at the top of the BBC. I don’t expect them to leave without being pushed though.
I think Lineker was wrong to have tweeted what he did, but he's a sports presenter not news so his twitter account shouldn't be subject to the same rules that say a Maitliss or Huw Edwards would/should have had. MOTD ain't Newsnight. I think having taken the stance they have though the BBC does probably need to stick with it or if they're going to back down have some high profile resignations (Richard Sharp needs gone with his ludicrous Boris dealings anyway)
Currently the BBC sports department runs the management and not the other way round.
Unsustainable imo
Agree, but that is the fault of the management. It is also the fault of the Tory MPs who put the management under such pressure.
Well that's your view, but to me the whole thing kicked off with GL winding up MPs. He cant exactly say he was taken aback given his track record.
Something he is perfectly entitled to do and they are perfectly entitled to have a go back at him and they should defend their position. However they didn't. What they did was try and get him sacked from the BBC and that is where it all went wrong.
The BBC should have stood up to the MPs, but they didn't. Both the MPs and the BBC are at fault.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
If the BBC has bent in the wind due to perceived backbench/gov't pressure and is about to bend back because Gary's mates there have kicked up a bit of a fuss then quite honestly the entire management team needs sacking.
Yes, it’s become existential for the management inserted by Johnson at the top of the BBC. I don’t expect them to leave without being pushed though.
I think Lineker was wrong to have tweeted what he did, but he's a sports presenter not news so his twitter account shouldn't be subject to the same rules that say a Maitliss or Huw Edwards would/should have had. MOTD ain't Newsnight. I think having taken the stance they have though the BBC does probably need to stick with it or if they're going to back down have some high profile resignations (Richard Sharp needs gone with his ludicrous Boris dealings anyway)
Currently the BBC sports department runs the management and not the other way round.
Unsustainable imo
Agree, but that is the fault of the management. It is also the fault of the Tory MPs who put the management under such pressure.
Well that's your view, but to me the whole thing kicked off with GL winding up MPs. He cant exactly say he was taken aback given his track record.
Something he is perfectly entitled to do and they are perfectly entitled to have a go back at him and they should defend their position. However they didn't. What they did was try and get him sacked from the BBC and that is where it all went wrong.
The BBC should have stood up to the MPs, but they didn't. Both the MPs and the BBC are at fault.
They are, and so is Lineker himself. You can't make bullshit comparisons of the government with the Nazis and not expect pushback.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
If the BBC has bent in the wind due to perceived backbench/gov't pressure and is about to bend back because Gary's mates there have kicked up a bit of a fuss then quite honestly the entire management team needs sacking.
Yes, it’s become existential for the management inserted by Johnson at the top of the BBC. I don’t expect them to leave without being pushed though.
It's possible that that the decision came from the DG, but I rather suspect it was from a couple of levels down the hierarchy. And in a bureaucratic organisation like that, it might easily have been made because the person responsible thought that was what his bosses wanted, not necessarily as a result of a direct instruction.
Or it's possible that Sunak called up the DG and told him to get Lineker taken off air. But to me, that fails the "what is more likely?" test.
That Sunak call would have leaked by now, if it had happened.
The idea of some Tory coup at the Beeb seems to have an absence of evidence. That some employees/contractors want to take down Boris's appointees - but have to date failed - might be a more worthwhile angle to persue.
They managed to cleverly make Sharp look bad by tricking him into donating half a million quid to the Tory party and into helping Johnson get a 800k loan that he forgot to mention. The devious bastards.
Prat. Sharp's actions clearly happened first - and there is a consequential backlash.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
As a result of this story people in Germany have learnt that:
1 Lineker works for the BBC as a football pundit. 2 he sometimes tweets his disapproval of government policies (that nobody in Germany has heard of otherwise). 3 the Conservatives have put party donors and members in charge of the BBC. 4 the current BBC management is willing to wreck its reputation for editorial independence - which it still has for a lot of people outside the UK - if the governing party complains about a tweet from a sports presenter. It's odd that the BBC is willing to risk its reputation over such a trivial thing, but as Boris Johnson is involved in the story people aren't surprised.
Of course the only reason why this has made the news here is because Lineker scored lots of goals for England. Probably nobody cares very much about the BBC's international reputation, but I think they should, it's a real asset.
My brother lives in Niedersachsen
He had no idea of the Lineker farrago, cant see it having that much traction with the german public.
I too have not heard about it in the German media. But on Kamski's point about the BBCs international reputation, the Corporation is very highly respected for news, documetaries and quite a few series. The BBC and the government should be doing everything possible to make sure that this is not damaged. Even from a Tory-Business standpoint this is a no brainer, as it currently earns a lot of money from exports with very little additional cost.
The BBC have strict guidelines in place for its news and current affairs employees - fair enough, state broadcaster should be seen to give us news and politics straight, without bias so we can make our own minds up.
Do you seriously think those same guidelines can apply to every singer, dancer, director, writer, janitor, tea lady? To apply those guidelines to Lineker you have to apply it to all of them too, which is not remotely doable. So why did they attempt do it?
You think tea lady has Twitter following because she works at BBC, you think Lineker only has Twitter following because works at BBC?
Alternatively you could say overtly pissing off your client's biggest client isnt a wise move and a bit of common sense seems to be missing.
But the polling evidence is that more people support Lineker than the BBC Brass. Some because they agree, others because of the Voltaire principle.
It's pissed off a significant and vocal slice of the BBC audience, and it's pissed off the Mail, but if "not pissing off anyone" is the line, what BBC productions can stand?
So what ? Thats all reaction to a problem Lineker has given his customer, he should have had more sense than to kick off the problem in the first place. Lots of people myself included have found themselves in a similar position where they have to suppress their personal views as aprt of a commercial relationship. It 's how the adult world works.
It's very evidently not how broadcasting works, though, as the license to opinionate given to so many other BBC faces makes clear. In the adult world, management sets clear rules which are applied consistently. Though there are plenty of adults who fail that test.
“Applied consistently”
And that sums it up perfectly. Thank you.
The great polling for Lineker is not for him at all - it’s for “Applied consistently and fairly”
I say to PB Tories, on PB you don’t have to follow a party line on this, just realise how the Mail and Government screwed up, what they are getting themselves into, and speak for yourself.
When the Daily Mail and the government pressed the cancel culture button, they only wanted it to apply to Lineker not every other writer, director, DJ, dancer, singer, presenter, janitor and tea lady - because so many of those others have actually spent ages piling into Labour on Twitter and elsewhere, doing the mail and Tory Party work for them.
It was asking for a special case and not applied fairly and consistently, where The Mail and the government screwed up, and the BBC has got itself in a tangle applying to one person it’s impossible to have for everyone else, outside news and current affairs.
Lineker will return to MOD after an apology from the BBC
Complete humiliation for the BBC.
At which point the Chair and DG say "nothing to do with us". Because obviously middle managers are empowered to do massively controversial things that will clearly bring the reputation of the entire organisation under threat without having to get top brass approval. Especially when said massively controversial thing is precisely what top brass were imposed to do...
An apology from the BBC. "We got it wrong and we are sorry?" Which rather adjusts the spotlight back onto the BBC's self-harming and why the DG and Chair allowed it to happen. And how they can possibly impose impartiality rules when they are Tory stooges?
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
As a result of this story people in Germany have learnt that:
1 Lineker works for the BBC as a football pundit. 2 he sometimes tweets his disapproval of government policies (that nobody in Germany has heard of otherwise). 3 the Conservatives have put party donors and members in charge of the BBC. 4 the current BBC management is willing to wreck its reputation for editorial independence - which it still has for a lot of people outside the UK - if the governing party complains about a tweet from a sports presenter. It's odd that the BBC is willing to risk its reputation over such a trivial thing, but as Boris Johnson is involved in the story people aren't surprised.
Of course the only reason why this has made the news here is because Lineker scored lots of goals for England. Probably nobody cares very much about the BBC's international reputation, but I think they should, it's a real asset.
I would bet good money that if the tweet had been the other way then Lab and the opposition would have gone bonkers and Lineker would have been out within the hour.
Therefore your "4" should be amended to:
the current BBC management is willing to wreck its reputation for editorial independence - which it still has for a lot of people outside the UK - if any political party complains about a tweet from a sports presenter. It's odd that the BBC is willing to risk its reputation over such a trivial thing, but as politicians are involved in the story people aren't surprised.
I would like to pay a tribute to all those posters last night including @TheScreamingEagles , @MaxPB and others who addressed the SVB crisis in such an informative manner helping many of us understand the crisis
It seems Sunak and Hunt have averted an immediate problem and again indicates just how different they are to Johnson and Truss
Indeed on the Lineker issue Sunak seems to have sealed Sharp's fate this morning by publicly failing to back him
Let's face it, the current BBC farce has the toxic fingerprints of Boris all over it - if those placemen of his weren't feeling so insecure it's doubtful they'd have panicked as they did over Lineker's mild rebuke to the government. Rishi must know that Lineker has national support while Boris and his stooges are facing mass derision. Rishi would be well advised (recall the white-shirted Blair and Kevin Keegan) being filmed playing header tennis with Lineker as a show of solidarity.
So what now happens to the Mince Tory MPs who just days ago were demanding a formal investigation into the Outrage of that man besmirching the British People with his tweet?
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
If the BBC has bent in the wind due to perceived backbench/gov't pressure and is about to bend back because Gary's mates there have kicked up a bit of a fuss then quite honestly the entire management team needs sacking.
Yes, it’s become existential for the management inserted by Johnson at the top of the BBC. I don’t expect them to leave without being pushed though.
I think Lineker was wrong to have tweeted what he did, but he's a sports presenter not news so his twitter account shouldn't be subject to the same rules that say a Maitliss or Huw Edwards would/should have had. MOTD ain't Newsnight. I think having taken the stance they have though the BBC does probably need to stick with it or if they're going to back down have some high profile resignations (Richard Sharp needs gone with his ludicrous Boris dealings anyway)
Currently the BBC sports department runs the management and not the other way round.
Unsustainable imo
Agree, but that is the fault of the management. It is also the fault of the Tory MPs who put the management under such pressure.
Well that's your view, but to me the whole thing kicked off with GL winding up MPs. He cant exactly say he was taken aback given his track record.
Something he is perfectly entitled to do and they are perfectly entitled to have a go back at him and they should defend their position. However they didn't. What they did was try and get him sacked from the BBC and that is where it all went wrong.
The BBC should have stood up to the MPs, but they didn't. Both the MPs and the BBC are at fault.
They are, and so is Lineker himself. You can't make bullshit comparisons of the government with the Nazis and not expect pushback.
Bullshit according to you. Not bullshit according to the Holocaust survivor. Perhaps you know best.
So what now happens to the Mince Tory MPs who just days ago were demanding a formal investigation into the Outrage of that man besmirching the British People with his tweet?
Will they let it lie?
With any luck the debate now turns to the content of his tweet, having established his right to say it.
So what now happens to the Mince Tory MPs who just days ago were demanding a formal investigation into the Outrage of that man besmirching the British People with his tweet?
Will they let it lie?
If they have any sense they will but sense and Nadine Dorries are two opposites
So what now happens to the Mince Tory MPs who just days ago were demanding a formal investigation into the Outrage of that man besmirching the British People with his tweet?
Will they let it lie?
Of course they wont, theyll rumble discontentedly until the next flare up and Lineker will provide it as he thinks he's fire proof. The situation is unsustainable.
I dislike Lineker because he has a hint of smugness, something the BBC thrives on too. Give me back my £160. A recipe for a protracted argument.
I suspect both sides have what I call a smug certainty that they are right.
'Activists' are often guilty of that.
A far more important example of that was in October 27th 1962. Fidel was in favour of starting World 3 if The USA invaded. Che was fully in favour too and retained that view years afterwards.
"Guevara reiterated that the cause of socialist liberation against global "imperialist aggression" would ultimately have been worth the possibility of "millions of atomic war victims"
He tried to coax Kruschev into agreeing, but Mr K had more sense.
I was amused by thousands of students having Ernesto's picture on their wall.
By comparison, this is totally irrelevant. Sack Gary (no reason, but why not - he'll be insufferable now), Reduce the BBC to a rump with science programmes only, and away you go.
So what now happens to the Mince Tory MPs who just days ago were demanding a formal investigation into the Outrage of that man besmirching the British People with his tweet?
Will they let it lie?
With any luck the debate now turns to the content of his tweet, having established his right to say it.
Anyone who feels that insistence on the right to freedom of speech is 'petulant', simply because it's from someone who criticised the government, doesn't have much respect for the concept.
Of course not, which is why I have repeatedly defended in discussion here linekers right to his views and free speech 🙄
However this has gone beyond that now. It is becoming a stand off where the BBC is effectively disproving the old adage that no one is bigger than the corporation.
The DG and the Chairman must go then.
There are two separate issues. One is very straightforward. The Chairman is plainly a political appointee, so the Corporation will always be in an awkward position when questions of impartiality arise.
The other is whether the Corporation can sanction staff and contributors who cross certain lines when commenting publicly. I'm agnostic on that, but such lines must apply equally to all. That seems to be the problem here. One thinks of, say, Clarkson and Neil, and then has to ask 'How different to Lineker?'. The Beeb has to untwist its knickers on that one going forward for sure.
How does it get itself out of the immediate mess? I'm not sure. If the DG has played a part in creating it, he should resign, but probably won't, and really that one is not big potatoes.
Clarkson’s big show is on Amazon - he’s not associated with the BBC in the same way
Similarly Neil has multiple other jobs and just does the occasional work for them
The difference is - as far as I’m aware - Lineker’s main gig and profile is completely associated with the BBC
(For those people who are critical of Neil having a political view point I think there is a difference between interview/opinion shows and news reporting. Fundamentally if you are watching Neil’s show you are expecting political debate. The issue is that Lineker is (a) associated with the BBC and (b) was talking to a broad group of not very politically involved people - so there is more risk of association
Nah, in public profile terms Lineker's main gig is the crisps. MOTD only gets about 2m viewers, but everyone knows the crisps.
So what now happens to the Mince Tory MPs who just days ago were demanding a formal investigation into the Outrage of that man besmirching the British People with his tweet?
Will they let it lie?
If they have any sense they will but sense and Nadine Dorries are two opposites
And she is smarter than many of the rest. Lee Anderson, Nick Fletcher, Scott Benton - these people look at Dorries and think "wow, that could be me". So they make every more moronic comments hoping desperately that impartial news stalwarts like Mike Sue Me Graham interview them.
So what now happens to the Mince Tory MPs who just days ago were demanding a formal investigation into the Outrage of that man besmirching the British People with his tweet?
Will they let it lie?
Of course they wont, theyll rumble discontentedly until the next flare up and Lineker will provide it as he thinks he's fire proof. The situation is unsustainable.
I do not expect Lineker and MOD will exist in the same format once contracts are up for renewal
So what now happens to the Mince Tory MPs who just days ago were demanding a formal investigation into the Outrage of that man besmirching the British People with his tweet?
Will they let it lie?
With any luck the debate now turns to the content of his tweet, having established his right to say it.
Haven't we done that to death already ?
We may have, but the politicians have studiously avoided doing so
I dislike Lineker because he has a hint of smugness, something the BBC thrives on too. Give me back my £160. A recipe for a protracted argument.
I suspect both sides have what I call a smug certainty that they are right.
'Activists' are often guilty of that.
A far more important example of that was in October 27th 1962. Fidel was in favour of starting World 3 if The USA invaded. Che was fully in favour too and retained that view years afterwards.
"Guevara reiterated that the cause of socialist liberation against global "imperialist aggression" would ultimately have been worth the possibility of "millions of atomic war victims"
He tried to coax Kruschev into agreeing, but Mr K had more sense.
I was amused by thousands of students having Ernesto's picture on their wall.
By comparison, this is totally irrelevant. Sack Gary (no reason, but why not - he'll be insufferable now), Reduce the BBC to a rump with science programmes only, and away you go.
Yes, the genius idea of so immolating the socialist world that the rubble gets reduced to rubble. I don't think socialist Jesus understood just how one-sided such a war would have been.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
If the BBC has bent in the wind due to perceived backbench/gov't pressure and is about to bend back because Gary's mates there have kicked up a bit of a fuss then quite honestly the entire management team needs sacking.
Yes, it’s become existential for the management inserted by Johnson at the top of the BBC. I don’t expect them to leave without being pushed though.
I think Lineker was wrong to have tweeted what he did, but he's a sports presenter not news so his twitter account shouldn't be subject to the same rules that say a Maitliss or Huw Edwards would/should have had. MOTD ain't Newsnight. I think having taken the stance they have though the BBC does probably need to stick with it or if they're going to back down have some high profile resignations (Richard Sharp needs gone with his ludicrous Boris dealings anyway)
Currently the BBC sports department runs the management and not the other way round.
Unsustainable imo
Agree, but that is the fault of the management. It is also the fault of the Tory MPs who put the management under such pressure.
Well that's your view, but to me the whole thing kicked off with GL winding up MPs. He cant exactly say he was taken aback given his track record.
Something he is perfectly entitled to do and they are perfectly entitled to have a go back at him and they should defend their position. However they didn't. What they did was try and get him sacked from the BBC and that is where it all went wrong.
The BBC should have stood up to the MPs, but they didn't. Both the MPs and the BBC are at fault.
They are, and so is Lineker himself. You can't make bullshit comparisons of the government with the Nazis and not expect pushback.
Bullshit according to you. Not bullshit according to the Holocaust survivor. Perhaps you know best.
Something he is perfectly entitled to do and they are perfectly entitled to have a go back at him and they should defend their position. However they didn't. What they did was try and get him sacked from the BBC and that is where it all went wrong.
The BBC should have stood up to the MPs, but they didn't. Both the MPs and the BBC are at fault.
Exactly. I've often been criticised by media people, sometimes in my view unfairly. I either answer back (that's what politicians do, and why not), or I don't bother. It never occurred to me to try to get them sacked.
So what now happens to the Mince Tory MPs who just days ago were demanding a formal investigation into the Outrage of that man besmirching the British People with his tweet?
Will they let it lie?
Of course they wont, theyll rumble discontentedly until the next flare up and Lineker will provide it as he thinks he's fire proof. The situation is unsustainable.
I do not expect Lineker and MOD will exist in the same format once contracts are up for renewal
Sports coverage is moving on
I agree the BBC sports management have been humiliated. They need to rebuild a department where they run the show and that will mean new formats and dropping lots of the current payroll.
The hunt is now on for whoever in the BBC made the stupid decision on Friday to censure him, when that was pretty much the position they had on Thursday.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
As a result of this story people in Germany have learnt that:
1 Lineker works for the BBC as a football pundit. 2 he sometimes tweets his disapproval of government policies (that nobody in Germany has heard of otherwise). 3 the Conservatives have put party donors and members in charge of the BBC. 4 the current BBC management is willing to wreck its reputation for editorial independence - which it still has for a lot of people outside the UK - if the governing party complains about a tweet from a sports presenter. It's odd that the BBC is willing to risk its reputation over such a trivial thing, but as Boris Johnson is involved in the story people aren't surprised.
Of course the only reason why this has made the news here is because Lineker scored lots of goals for England. Probably nobody cares very much about the BBC's international reputation, but I think they should, it's a real asset.
My brother lives in Niedersachsen
He had no idea of the Lineker farrago, cant see it having that much traction with the german public.
Maybe not, though it has been widely reported here, and even made it onto some front pages.
Here is an interview with the London ARD correspondent:
"Suspending him from his job for this is absurd, if only because there are dozens of other BBC presenters who have taken much clearer political stands, on Twitter and elsewhere, but have never been given even the mildest of warnings. The difference was that these presenters supported the government's policies. Unfortunately, there is simply no other way to put it, but BBC management made a massive mistake here out of fear of government pressure."
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around? FFS.
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
European stocks now down in the 2% - 2.5% range, ahead of the American opening bell. Not brilliant, but looks like good mitigation from central banks over the weekend has worked.
The Yoons (adopting unfamiliar reasonable tone): Look, your Indy dream is over, we’ve all got to work together for the good of Scotland, it’s going to be Devomax all the way.
5 minutes later: HA HA WE’RE GONNAE FUCK UP YER BOTTLE RETURN SCHEME!!
We expect the Tories to act like repulsive shits. But Labour… actually, forget that…
maybe we can send Gary Lineker, he's their kind of guy.
You need to 'recognise grey areas'. 😏
Perhaps we could put Richard Sharpe in charge, as he's likely to have time in his hands soon. And has received something of an education in dealing with those who have market power.
The hunt is now on for whoever in the BBC made the stupid decision on Friday to censure him, when that was pretty much the position they had on Thursday.
I doubt it
Seems the BBC and Lineker have resolved their issues and there is to be an independent review into impartiality rules across the BBC
You may want this to continue but the news media will move on, as they do, most likely to the budget
The hunt is now on for whoever in the BBC made the stupid decision on Friday to censure him, when that was pretty much the position they had on Thursday.
Nah. This is the BBC. The hunt is on for whoever leaked the "settlement" to give SKY the scoop....
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around? FFS.
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Mr Davie doesn't agree with you. He's grovelled and backed down, very considerably emphasising that the policy and/or enforcement of BBC social media rules comprise a mess (read: unevenly applied).
Statement from Director-General of the BBC, Tim Davie:
“Everyone recognises this has been a difficult period for staff, contributors, presenters and, most importantly, our audiences. I apologise for this. The potential confusion caused by the grey areas of the BBC’s social media guidance that was introduced in 2020 is recognised. I want to get matters resolved and our sport content back on air.
“Impartiality is important to the BBC. It is also important to the public. The BBC has a commitment to impartiality in its Charter and a commitment to freedom of expression. That is a difficult balancing act to get right where people are subject to different contracts and on air positions, and with different audience and social media profiles. The BBC’s social media guidance is designed to help manage these sometimes difficult challenges and I am aware there is a need to ensure that the guidance is up to this task. It should be clear, proportionate, and appropriate.
“Accordingly, we are announcing a review led by an independent expert – reporting to the BBC – on its existing social media guidance, with a particular focus on how it applies to freelancers outside news and current affairs. The BBC and myself are aware that Gary is in favour of such a review.
“Shortly, the BBC will announce who will conduct that review. Whilst this work is undertaken, the BBC’s current social media guidance remains in place.
“Gary is a valued part of the BBC and I know how much the BBC means to Gary, and I look forward to him presenting our coverage this coming weekend.”
Statement from Gary Lineker:
“I am glad that we have found a way forward. I support this review and look forward to getting back on air.”
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
As a result of this story people in Germany have learnt that:
1 Lineker works for the BBC as a football pundit. 2 he sometimes tweets his disapproval of government policies (that nobody in Germany has heard of otherwise). 3 the Conservatives have put party donors and members in charge of the BBC. 4 the current BBC management is willing to wreck its reputation for editorial independence - which it still has for a lot of people outside the UK - if the governing party complains about a tweet from a sports presenter. It's odd that the BBC is willing to risk its reputation over such a trivial thing, but as Boris Johnson is involved in the story people aren't surprised.
Of course the only reason why this has made the news here is because Lineker scored lots of goals for England. Probably nobody cares very much about the BBC's international reputation, but I think they should, it's a real asset.
My brother lives in Niedersachsen
He had no idea of the Lineker farrago, cant see it having that much traction with the german public.
Maybe not, though it has been widely reported here, and even made it onto some front pages.
Here is an interview with the London ARD correspondent:
"Suspending him from his job for this is absurd, if only because there are dozens of other BBC presenters who have taken much clearer political stands, on Twitter and elsewhere, but have never been given even the mildest of warnings. The difference was that these presenters supported the government's policies. Unfortunately, there is simply no other way to put it, but BBC management made a massive mistake here out of fear of government pressure."
Yeah, I agree this analysis - fear of government pressure rather than actual government pressure - is most likely correct.
Rupert Murdoch and his allies must be rubbing their hands in glee at the Lineker fracas. Defenestrating the BBC is one of his life's ambition. Ironic that a leading member of the Wokerati is proving to be such a useful idiot in this regard. Those of us who actually care about public service broadcasting in the UK should be dismayed at what is happening.
Statement from Director-General of the BBC, Tim Davie:
“Everyone recognises this has been a difficult period for staff, contributors, presenters and, most importantly, our audiences. I apologise for this. The potential confusion caused by the grey areas of the BBC’s social media guidance that was introduced in 2020 is recognised. I want to get matters resolved and our sport content back on air.
“Impartiality is important to the BBC. It is also important to the public. The BBC has a commitment to impartiality in its Charter and a commitment to freedom of expression. That is a difficult balancing act to get right where people are subject to different contracts and on air positions, and with different audience and social media profiles. The BBC’s social media guidance is designed to help manage these sometimes difficult challenges and I am aware there is a need to ensure that the guidance is up to this task. It should be clear, proportionate, and appropriate.
“Accordingly, we are announcing a review led by an independent expert – reporting to the BBC – on its existing social media guidance, with a particular focus on how it applies to freelancers outside news and current affairs. The BBC and myself are aware that Gary is in favour of such a review.
“Shortly, the BBC will announce who will conduct that review. Whilst this work is undertaken, the BBC’s current social media guidance remains in place.
“Gary is a valued part of the BBC and I know how much the BBC means to Gary, and I look forward to him presenting our coverage this coming weekend.”
Statement from Gary Lineker:
“I am glad that we have found a way forward. I support this review and look forward to getting back on air.”
Comments
It was remarkably batshit.
a) The Govt and Tory MPs have backed off big time. It is now a BBC issue, nothing to do with them. Yet I am sure they created this. It was their pressure that caused the BBC to act. Nothing would have happened otherwise. Most of us would have been unaware of his post. I certainly wouldn't have known about it, yet most of the flack is aimed at the BBC now, but they came under huge pressure from the Tories.
b) @hyufd to his credit has not entered the debate. hyufd is one of the strongest defenders of the Tories, but it appears he is sensible enough to know this is a no win situation. I'm rather impressed.
It's pissed off a significant and vocal slice of the BBC audience, and it's pissed off the Mail, but if "not pissing off anyone" is the line, what BBC productions can stand?
The three candidates have the weekend to convince the party's circa-100,000-strong membership to choose them before starting to cast their alternative votes.
They'll have until noon on 27 March to do so, after which the next head of Scotland's biggest political party will be revealed.
https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,snp-leadership-race-how-and-when-scotlands-next-first-minister-gets-elected
Of course it's absurd propaganda.
I think having taken the stance they have though the BBC does probably need to stick with it or if they're going to back down have some high profile resignations (Richard Sharp needs gone with his ludicrous Boris dealings anyway)
Or it's possible that Sunak called up the DG and told him to get Lineker taken off air. But to me, that fails the "what is more likely?" test.
Unsustainable imo
The next referendum is a long way off. Independence has been parked and whether the next leader is Yousaf or Forbes, this will need to be about getting back to a sense of competence in government and if that is a throwback to 2007 and operating as a minority government, then the lesson to take is that it worked for the SNP then.
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,the-snp-leadership-contest-has-exposed-a-surprising-level-of-political-naivety-and-a-party-at-war
Of course they should never have been put under that pressure in the first place. if they themselves thought Lineker was going to far, it could probably have been dealt with quietly, but no the MPs had to make a fuss and interfere in the running of the BBC.
What has Drakeford been saying about the castles? I can’t find a reference anywhere.
And good morning, one and all!
Just an afterthought, will Leon be back today or in some other guise?
Hopefully the next couple of hours will see me proved wrong with copious videos showing Ukrainian flags being flown in Nova Kakhovka, but I think we chalk this one up to idiot rumours. I remember the claims of a Ukrainian advance into Horlivka a year ago, or the panic that Kyiv was about to be encircled.
But if BoL is as good as you say and HSBC as bad they can capture the clients over time
(I wouldn’t personally do that though; watching that stuff is bad for the soul.)
It's not like they volunteered and were chosen after a lengthy and arduous selection process with DS screaming at them "do you really want it".
The rules seem reasonable to be honest - it’s the enforcement that’s been patchy at best
"1. How dare those footballers have any opinion on statues/BLM kneeling/school food!! Cancel them!!"
*said team reaches finals in Euros*
"2. How wonderful our brave boys* are", waves flag of St George, places flare up bum ...
So the footie community can be forgiven a degree of scepticism a priori ...
*Mind, girls did better. But I'm not sure they had as much attention.
In the adult world, management sets clear rules which are applied consistently. Though there are plenty of adults who fail that test.
a) First degree Streisand effect. Tory right-wingers have picked a fight with the BBC and Lineker, forgetting how that can back-fire.
b) I have also been struck by HY's silence on this one. It's puzzling given the corners he regularly paints himself into in defence of the Tories.
The idea of some Tory coup at the Beeb seems to have an absence of evidence. That some employees/contractors want to take down Boris's appointees - but have to date failed - might be a more worthwhile angle to persue.
1 Lineker works for the BBC as a football pundit.
2 he sometimes tweets his disapproval of government policies (that nobody in Germany has heard of otherwise).
3 the Conservatives have put party donors and members in charge of the BBC.
4 the current BBC management is willing to wreck its reputation for editorial independence - which it still has for a lot of people outside the UK - if the governing party complains about a tweet from a sports presenter. It's odd that the BBC is willing to risk its reputation over such a trivial thing, but as Boris Johnson is involved in the story people aren't surprised.
Of course the only reason why this has made the news here is because Lineker scored lots of goals for England. Probably nobody cares very much about the BBC's international reputation, but I think they should, it's a real asset.
I would like to pay a tribute to all those posters last night including @TheScreamingEagles , @MaxPB and others who addressed the SVB crisis in such an informative manner helping many of us understand the crisis
It seems Sunak and Hunt have averted an immediate problem and again indicates just how different they are to Johnson and Truss
Indeed on the Lineker issue Sunak seems to have sealed Sharp's fate this morning by publicly failing to back him
"IDIOT RUMOURS"???
In my experience the corporate rule is troublemakers get sidelined however big they are. Lineker and his mates will get quietly dropped when it comes to contract renewals, No manager in his right mind is going to want to manage an band of prima donnas who can undermine their authority, which is where things are atm. He's damaged goods.
As for the rules comment, thats what it says in the handbook but its certainly not been my experience; if your face fits the rules are interpreted in your favour and vice versa. Ive seen it too many times.
Lineker will return to MOD after an apology from the BBC
He had no idea of the Lineker farrago, cant see it having that much traction with the german public.
The BBC should have stood up to the MPs, but they didn't. Both the MPs and the BBC are at fault.
But on Kamski's point about the BBCs international reputation, the Corporation is very highly respected for news, documetaries and quite a few series. The BBC and the government should be doing everything possible to make sure that this is not damaged. Even from a Tory-Business standpoint this is a no brainer, as it currently earns a lot of money from exports with very little additional cost.
And that sums it up perfectly. Thank you.
The great polling for Lineker is not for him at all - it’s for “Applied consistently and fairly”
I say to PB Tories, on PB you don’t have to follow a party line on this, just realise how the Mail and Government screwed up, what they are getting themselves into, and speak for yourself.
When the Daily Mail and the government pressed the cancel culture button, they only wanted it to apply to Lineker not every other writer, director, DJ, dancer, singer, presenter, janitor and tea lady - because so many of those others have actually spent ages piling into Labour on Twitter and elsewhere, doing the mail and Tory Party work for them.
It was asking for a special case and not applied fairly and consistently, where The Mail and the government screwed up, and the BBC has got itself in a tangle applying to one person it’s impossible to have for everyone else, outside news and current affairs.
An apology from the BBC. "We got it wrong and we are sorry?" Which rather adjusts the spotlight back onto the BBC's self-harming and why the DG and Chair allowed it to happen. And how they can possibly impose impartiality rules when they are Tory stooges?
This will rumble on won't it...
Therefore your "4" should be amended to:
the current BBC management is willing to wreck its reputation for editorial independence - which it still has for a lot of people outside the UK - if any political party complains about a tweet from a sports presenter. It's odd that the BBC is willing to risk its reputation over such a trivial thing, but as politicians are involved in the story people aren't surprised.
Will they let it lie?
I suspect both sides have what I call a smug certainty that they are right.
'Activists' are often guilty of that.
A far more important example of that was in October 27th 1962. Fidel was in favour of starting World 3 if The USA invaded. Che was fully in favour too and retained that view years afterwards.
"Guevara reiterated that the cause of socialist liberation against global "imperialist aggression" would ultimately have been worth the possibility of "millions of atomic war victims"
He tried to coax Kruschev into agreeing, but Mr K had more sense.
I was amused by thousands of students having Ernesto's picture on their wall.
By comparison, this is totally irrelevant. Sack Gary (no reason, but why not - he'll be insufferable now), Reduce the BBC to a rump with science programmes only, and away you go.
Sports coverage is moving on
'Lineker to return as BBC Sport host | Corporation will apologise'
https://www.skysports.com/share/12832578
Here is an interview with the London ARD correspondent:
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/ard-korrespondentin-zum-fall-lineker-ein-massiver-fehler-der-bbc-aus-angst-vor-druck-der-regierung-9488597.html
"Suspending him from his job for this is absurd, if only because there are dozens of other BBC presenters who have taken much clearer political stands, on Twitter and elsewhere, but have never been given even the mildest of warnings. The difference was that these presenters supported the government's policies. Unfortunately, there is simply no other way to put it, but BBC management made a massive mistake here out of fear of government pressure."
Hmmm. Lineker.
As I see it his problems are:
1 - That he is in breach of guidelines and trying to wriggle his way out. Difficult given that when he was re-signed in 2020 it was very publicly made very clear that he would be required to adhere to 'the rules'.
(https://news.sky.com/story/gary-lineker-to-adhere-to-new-bbc-impartiality-rules-after-signing-fresh-five-year-deal-12072460).
Hard for the BBC to back down on that one.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around? FFS.
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
UAE trade minister warns UK not to speak up over human rights or jeopardize trade deals.
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-trade-deal-human-rights-uae-minister-thani-bin-ahmed-al-zeyoudi-gulf-cooperation-council/
Only joking!
Perhaps we could put Richard Sharpe in charge, as he's likely to have time in his hands soon. And has received something of an education in dealing with those who have market power.
Seems the BBC and Lineker have resolved their issues and there is to be an independent review into impartiality rules across the BBC
You may want this to continue but the news media will move on, as they do, most likely to the budget
“Everyone recognises this has been a difficult period for staff, contributors, presenters and, most importantly, our audiences. I apologise for this. The potential confusion caused by the grey areas of the BBC’s social media guidance that was introduced in 2020 is recognised. I want to get matters resolved and our sport content back on air.
“Impartiality is important to the BBC. It is also important to the public. The BBC has a commitment to impartiality in its Charter and a commitment to freedom of expression. That is a difficult balancing act to get right where people are subject to different contracts and on air positions, and with different audience and social media profiles. The BBC’s social media guidance is designed to help manage these sometimes difficult challenges and I am aware there is a need to ensure that the guidance is up to this task. It should be clear, proportionate, and appropriate.
“Accordingly, we are announcing a review led by an independent expert – reporting to the BBC – on its existing social media guidance, with a particular focus on how it applies to freelancers outside news and current affairs. The BBC and myself are aware that Gary is in favour of such a review.
“Shortly, the BBC will announce who will conduct that review. Whilst this work is undertaken, the BBC’s current social media guidance remains in place.
“Gary is a valued part of the BBC and I know how much the BBC means to Gary, and I look forward to him presenting our coverage this coming weekend.”
Statement from Gary Lineker:
“I am glad that we have found a way forward. I support this review and look forward to getting back on air.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/director-general-tim-davie-gary-lineker/
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made.
Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.