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."
'In remarks intended to embarrass the British public services broadcaster after it pressed ahead with the broadcast of a controversial two-part documentary on the Godhra riots that had irked India, Union I&B minister Anurag Thakur on Saturday took a dig at BBC and said that while it "makes lofty claims about journalistic objectivity and independence ", its actions back home proved otherwise.'
'"Fake narrative setting and ethical journalism are inherently contradictory. Those indulging in malicious propaganda forged in concocted facts can obviously never be expected to have the moral fibre or the courage to stand up for journalistic independence," the Union Minister said on Twitter.'
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.
Read the two statements above, and tell me again who is the idiot.
BBC Director General Tim Davie: “Everyone recognised this has been a difficult period for staff, contributors, presenters and, most importantly, our audiences. I apologise for this.“
Basically Lineker has entirely won. Nothing changes in terms of social media in the short term.
So the BBC finds itself in that most BBC of positions- where by the crisis’ end, everyone is angry. The BBC no longer has any kudos from the right in acting on what they see as an impartiality question. Everyone else is still furious for it happening in the first place.
The point remains that this won't stop the BBC treading on eggshells over just about anything. It is in mortal fear of government buffeting (of any colour).
It is no way for a broadcaster (leaving aside ownership) to behave.
This must surely hasten and intensify debate around the BBC funding.
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.”
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.
It sure would be a tragedy if BBC Scotland was dragged down by the undertow of a sinking SS State Broadcaster.
The point remains that this won't stop the BBC treading on eggshells over just about anything. It is in mortal fear of government buffeting (of any colour).
It is no way for a broadcaster (leaving aside ownership) to behave.
This must surely hasten and intensify debate around the BBC funding.
Indeed.
A Labour government will delay some of the pressure on the BBCs future in all likelihood. Problem for the BBC is that it won’t take much for a similar controversy to kick off on the other side of the spectrum. And once this causes issues for a Labour government there is no going back.
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.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
New New Labour finally show a bit of principled backbone.
Only joking!
Blue Tories, Red Tories, same shite.
Yes. By playing soooooo safety first ahead of the general election, not allowing the Tories a slither of clear water to exploit, Labour are now losing more voters than if they allowed some clear water.
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
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.
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.”
"the grey areas of the BBC’s social media guidance that was introduced in 2020" means "I am having to pick up the shit put in place by others. In future, there will be no doubt: get it wrong, Gary, and you will be out on your ear."
I expect that going forward, all the grey will be very black and white. The legacy of this will be that Gary will have made it far more difficult to express an opinion, whether a BBC employee or a contractor.
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.
Why do you think Germans have learnt that? It hasn't been reported that way in Germany so far as I am aware. Plus "state broadcaster does what government tells it to do" is a much simpler story to understand.
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
So he gets to walk away - the sound of utter vindication ringing in his ears - making more or less the same political point that started all this. Talk about winning hands down.
The point remains that this won't stop the BBC treading on eggshells over just about anything. It is in mortal fear of government buffeting (of any colour).
It is no way for a broadcaster (leaving aside ownership) to behave.
This must surely hasten and intensify debate around the BBC funding.
The BBC is on a terminal trajectory, the over 75s watch 10x as much BBC TV output as the 16-24 year olds (down to a mere 1.5 hours per week). The BBC is completely stuffed if it cannot reverse that trend. The navel gazing and the regular licence fee fight divert attention from that. The BBC should be thinking of what it needs to do to become a global media player, what it will take to go 100% streaming, what it needs to do to widen the base of content makers, those are the sort of prerequisites to the BBC having a future.
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
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.”
"the grey areas of the BBC’s social media guidance that was introduced in 2020" means "I am having to pick up the shit put in place by others. In future, there will be no doubt: get it wrong, Gary, and you will be out on your ear."
I expect that going forward, all the grey will be very black and white. The legacy of this will be that Gary will have made it far more difficult to express an opinion, whether a BBC employee or a contractor.
Yeah. Although given that some people have been interpreting the phrase "a lower risk" to mean "low risk", I'm not sure how black and white it can be.
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?
Furthermore, Lineker doesn’t just work at the BBC. He has presenting commitments on other channels, he used to be on BT Sport for example.
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.
Why do you think Germans have learnt that? It hasn't been reported that way in Germany so far as I am aware. Plus "state broadcaster does what government tells it to do" is a much simpler story to understand.
I think they have learned that in the way that many in the UK have learned that.
The thing that has always irritated me in BBC interviews with, say, the Russia Today is when the BBC interviewer says "well you would say that as a state-owned broadcaster" without a hint of self-awareness.
The BBC is a state-owned broadcaster but is doing backflips to somehow create an illusion of being an independent broadcaster.
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.”
"the grey areas of the BBC’s social media guidance that was introduced in 2020" means "I am having to pick up the shit put in place by others. In future, there will be no doubt: get it wrong, Gary, and you will be out on your ear."
I expect that going forward, all the grey will be very black and white. The legacy of this will be that Gary will have made it far more difficult to express an opinion, whether a BBC employee or a contractor.
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
self created debt issues - to facilitate remaining in the UK.
But it doesn't matter - until there are zero people from problem zones seeking asylum his comment holds true no matter how much you hate it.
Again if you want to fix boat immigration - the only way is @Malmesbury 's approach on employing illegal workers - £100,000 fine with incentives on reporting...
Within hours you would know who was an illegal immigrant.
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
So he gets to walk away - the sound of utter vindication ringing in his ears - making more or less the same political point that started all this. Talk about winning hands down.
If he hadn't made the bullshit comparison to the Nazis, "all this" wouldn't even have started.
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.
Well, yes. A backlash against a tory coup at the BBC.
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
So he gets to walk away - the sound of utter vindication ringing in his ears - making more or less the same political point that started all this. Talk about winning hands down.
Kinda shows that those wannabe Tory politicians inhabiting the upper echelons of the BBC would have been crap at it if they'd taken it further. No obstacle to being part of a Johnson government of course.
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
The point remains that this won't stop the BBC treading on eggshells over just about anything. It is in mortal fear of government buffeting (of any colour).
It is no way for a broadcaster (leaving aside ownership) to behave.
This must surely hasten and intensify debate around the BBC funding.
The BBC is on a terminal trajectory, the over 75s watch 10x as much BBC TV output as the 16-24 year olds (down to a mere 1.5 hours per week). The BBC is completely stuffed if it cannot reverse that trend. The navel gazing and the regular licence fee fight divert attention from that. The BBC should be thinking of what it needs to do to become a global media player, what it will take to go 100% streaming, what it needs to do to widen the base of content makers, those are the sort of prerequisites to the BBC having a future.
Then they probably need leadership appointed by someone other than this or recent Conservative governments, who are evidently happy with managed decline.
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.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
So he gets to walk away - the sound of utter vindication ringing in his ears - making more or less the same political point that started all this. Talk about winning hands down.
If he hadn't made the bullshit comparison to the Nazis, "all this" wouldn't even have started.
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
So he gets to walk away - the sound of utter vindication ringing in his ears - making more or less the same political point that started all this. Talk about winning hands down.
If he hadn't made the bullshit comparison to the Nazis, "all this" wouldn't even have started.
If the Express and Mail had not tried to whip up a frenzy about a single Tweet that would otherwise have had the shelf life of all other tweets this would not have happened.
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
The majority of those coming have been not from Albania , this surge in numbers seems to have been a one off . No ones arguing that they shouldn’t be here. I thought the statement was great and shows some empathy which is truly lacking in most of the current rancid government .
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
So he gets to walk away - the sound of utter vindication ringing in his ears - making more or less the same political point that started all this. Talk about winning hands down.
If he hadn't made the bullshit comparison to the Nazis, "all this" wouldn't even have started.
If the Express and Mail had not tried to whip up a frenzy about a single Tweet that would otherwise have had the shelf life of all other tweets this would not have happened.
If some middle manager at the BBC was paying attention to the Mail and the Express then they're a numpty.
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
Lots of people have general universal compassion. Probably most of us. Governments and politicians have to implement any policies arising out of universal compassion. Gary Lineker does not. Unless he has a workable policy which can command electoral support his views are of little worth. As no-one else has such a policy it is unlikely he does.
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.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
Then they probably need leadership appointed by someone other than this or recent Conservative governments, who are evidently happy with managed decline.
They probably do, but by and large all we hear politically from Labour is about protecting the licence fee, they show no more recognition of the trouble the BBC is in than the BBC itself. I'd expect Labour to try and hobble the streaming companies before it considered restructuring the BBC and rethinking public service broadcasting.
Labour lead is twenty-three points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 27% (-4) Lab 50% (+3) Lib Dem 9% (+1) Other 15% (+1) Fieldwork: 10th - 13th March 2023 Sample: 1,561 GB adults (Changes from 2nd - 6th March 2023)
Then they probably need leadership appointed by someone other than this or recent Conservative governments, who are evidently happy with managed decline.
They probably do, but by and large all we hear politically from Labour is about protecting the licence fee, they show no more recognition of the trouble the BBC is in than the BBC itself. I'd expect Labour to try and hobble the streaming companies before it considered restructuring the BBC and rethinking public service broadcasting.
Good luck trying to put the Internet back in its box.
Labour lead is twenty-three points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 27% (-4) Lab 50% (+3) Lib Dem 9% (+1) Other 15% (+1) Fieldwork: 10th - 13th March 2023 Sample: 1,561 GB adults (Changes from 2nd - 6th March 2023)
The Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Express, the Sun, the Times and the Tory right went to war with Gary Lineker - and they lost. Humiliatingly. They will never, ever forgive either Lineker or the BBC for that. And they will look more and more deranged as a result.
The Daily Mail appear to be the biggest losers from this affair.
tragic...
I'd argue that the BBC in the long run is the biggest loser. They are basically now going to allow anyone not in current affairs or news to say what they like. If that's the case then logically the only part of the BBC that should remain publicly funded is the news & current affairs programmes. That would be the death of the BBC as it has been known. Makes sense in my view, no reason programmes such as MotD or Strictly to not be on commercial channels.
Though looks very much like a government own goal.
Let's go to VAR, and see if management get a red card.
I'm not convinced its as big an issue for the government as it is for the BBC. Budget tomorrow - budget falling apart Wednesday (as is traditional). Lineker back on the screens (yay?) this weekend, no doubt with some comical reference to the affair.
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
Did he refer to Albania? How about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria?
Albania is where many of those in the boats are coming from.
Does that mean that Gary thinks economic migrants can go fuck themselves?
I have no idea what Gary thinks about Albanians. I don't believe they should be coming here, but if Lineker does I defend his right to say so. However that wasn't the point of his post was it? You just introduced Albanians. He never mentioned them.
If the review effectively acts to try to destroy the BBC then those working there should throw caution to the wind and eviscerate the government in the run upto the next GE .Indeed why would you bother with impartiality if your existence depends on getting rid of the Tories .
New New Labour finally show a bit of principled backbone.
Only joking!
Blue Tories, Red Tories, same shite.
Yes. By playing soooooo safety first ahead of the general election, not allowing the Tories a slither of clear water to exploit, Labour are now losing more voters than if they allowed some clear water.
And that way madness lies
How exactly do you conclude they are “losing voters”?
Then they probably need leadership appointed by someone other than this or recent Conservative governments, who are evidently happy with managed decline.
They probably do, but by and large all we hear politically from Labour is about protecting the licence fee, they show no more recognition of the trouble the BBC is in than the BBC itself. I'd expect Labour to try and hobble the streaming companies before it considered restructuring the BBC and rethinking public service broadcasting.
Good luck trying to put the Internet back in its box.
I agree, but politicians are more than capable of persuading themselves that they can do the impossible.
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
Labour lead is twenty-three points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 27% (-4) Lab 50% (+3) Lib Dem 9% (+1) Other 15% (+1) Fieldwork: 10th - 13th March 2023 Sample: 1,561 GB adults (Changes from 2nd - 6th March 2023)
I can believe that, cycling into the wind all the way into work this morning. If it's still blowing in the same direction this evening I'll be home in about 5 minutes.
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
Did he refer to Albania? How about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria?
Albania is where many of those in the boats are coming from.
Does that mean that Gary thinks economic migrants can go fuck themselves?
I have no idea what Gary thinks about Albanians. I don't believe they should be coming here, but if Lineker does I defend his right to say so. However that wasn't the point of his post was it? You just introduced Albanians. He never mentioned them.
It's like the Nazi business. Reminds me of complaining about a box of Smarties because one doesn't like the green ones.
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
So he gets to walk away - the sound of utter vindication ringing in his ears - making more or less the same political point that started all this. Talk about winning hands down.
If he hadn't made the bullshit comparison to the Nazis, "all this" wouldn't even have started.
Football presenter tweets bullshit isn't news. Tories and bosses massively overreact and throw weight around is. Without the latter, few would have cared, and it would be forgotten already.
I can believe that, cycling into the wind all the way into work this morning. If it's still blowing in the same direction this evening I'll be home in about 5 minutes.
If you're a regular cyclist then you should well know that the wind is always a headwind and never a tailwind. Good luck on your headwind journey home tonight.
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
Lots of people have general universal compassion. Probably most of us. Governments and politicians have to implement any policies arising out of universal compassion. Gary Lineker does not. Unless he has a workable policy which can command electoral support his views are of little worth. As no-one else has such a policy it is unlikely he does.
The idea that good public policy is just good private conduct on a larger scale is very appealing, but probably not true. It feels true to many people though.
Labour lead is twenty-three points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 27% (-4) Lab 50% (+3) Lib Dem 9% (+1) Other 15% (+1) Fieldwork: 10th - 13th March 2023 Sample: 1,561 GB adults (Changes from 2nd - 6th March 2023)
I sense a trend here. If the government does and says nothing, they gradually drift up a few points. On the other hand, if they do or say *anything* then some of the people in their core 30% get agitated, but some remember why they were never going to vote Tory again and jump to Labour.
The problem for the Tories is that doing and saying nothing is not possible during an election campaign.
Then they probably need leadership appointed by someone other than this or recent Conservative governments, who are evidently happy with managed decline.
They probably do, but by and large all we hear politically from Labour is about protecting the licence fee, they show no more recognition of the trouble the BBC is in than the BBC itself. I'd expect Labour to try and hobble the streaming companies before it considered restructuring the BBC and rethinking public service broadcasting.
Good luck trying to put the Internet back in its box.
I agree, but politicians are more than capable of persuading themselves that they can do the impossible.
It is funny to watch them try though, I’ll give you that!
Today’s kids (18-30s) watch almost no live TV apart from sport, and that isn’t going to get any better in the future. I’m 45 and fall into that category. My parents watch TV, but they’re in their seventies.
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
It's no way for a (national) broadcaster to behave, though, is it.
Look at LBC. Nick Ferrari followed by James O'Brien. Listening to each in turn makes me viscerally support whoever they are criticising but both hugely entertaining. No one cares that JO'B goes off on any number of explicitly anti-Cons rants at the drop of a hat. And more power to him.
The BBC is increasingly in an untenable position and wouldn't it be ironic if Gary Lineker was the catalyst for the demise of the BBC as we know it.
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
Its not fit for purpose though is it? There is ambiguity about who can say what.
The Daily Mail appear to be the biggest losers from this affair.
tragic...
I'd argue that the BBC in the long run is the biggest loser. They are basically now going to allow anyone not in current affairs or news to say what they like. If that's the case then logically the only part of the BBC that should remain publicly funded is the news & current affairs programmes. That would be the death of the BBC as it has been known. Makes sense in my view, no reason programmes such as MotD or Strictly to not be on commercial channels.
Strong winds here. Nearly half the National Grid is currently supplied by wind. CGT down to less than 10%
Something doesn't add up here
wind 15.6 , cgt 3.2 and nuclear 4.1 = by my maths 22.9....yet demand is 32.2 where is the other 10gw coming from?
Biomass, solar, interconnectors are not on that panel. Net imports over interconnectors are running at 6GW for a start, which is 15+% of demand.
I'd say that's French nuclear and Norwegian hydro being better than CCGT at this instant (maybe we are exporting gas as gas which would not appear on the elec charts but may impact), which is interesting.
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.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Bizarre.
Rewilding is great where appropriate.
In the same way that development is great where appropriate.
Land use has always changed over time in multiple ways.
And I've seen lots of former agricultural land, former industrial land and former railway land which has been improved by rewilding.
Of course it has to be done competently:
A scheme to rewild marshland east of Amsterdam has been savaged by an official report and sparked public protest after deer, horses and cattle died over the winter
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
It's no way for a (national) broadcaster to behave, though, is it.
Look at LBC. Nick Ferrari followed by James O'Brien. Listening to each in turn makes me viscerally support whoever they are criticising but both hugely entertaining. No one cares that JO'B goes off on any number of explicitly anti-Cons rants at the drop of a hat. And more power to him.
The BBC is increasingly in an untenable position and wouldn't it be ironic if Gary Lineker was the catalyst for the demise of the BBC as we know it.
JO'B gets my back up because he is explicitly rude to people he doesn't agree with in a way that none of the other presenters are. Even Nigel Farage as a presenter is polite to people he disagrees with.
Labour lead is twenty-three points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 27% (-4) Lab 50% (+3) Lib Dem 9% (+1) Other 15% (+1) Fieldwork: 10th - 13th March 2023 Sample: 1,561 GB adults (Changes from 2nd - 6th March 2023)
I sense a trend here. If the government does and says nothing, they gradually drift up a few points. On the other hand, if they do or say *anything* then some of the people in their core 30% get agitated, but some remember why they were never going to vote Tory again and jump to Labour.
And an election campaign is going to be several weeks of Tories of every zoological variety saying things all the time.
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
So he gets to walk away - the sound of utter vindication ringing in his ears - making more or less the same political point that started all this. Talk about winning hands down.
If he hadn't made the bullshit comparison to the Nazis, "all this" wouldn't even have started.
If the Express and Mail had not tried to whip up a frenzy about a single Tweet that would otherwise have had the shelf life of all other tweets this would not have happened.
That's the other thing to come out of this. There is a cultural mindset to seek out things to be offended by; see most of the midmarket press. It's one of the reasons that what a Match of the Day presenter says on Twitter is much less important than what he says on screen. You actively have to seek one, whereas you get the other even if you just want some football highlights and chat on a Saturday night.
It's been good to see that curtain-twiching tendency faced down, at least for now.
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
Its not fit for purpose though is it? There is ambiguity about who can say what.
There is no ambiguity.
Lineker was allowed to say it.
Then the BBC decided the Government wouldn't like it and tried to rewrite the rules retrospectively.
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
It's no way for a (national) broadcaster to behave, though, is it.
Look at LBC. Nick Ferrari followed by James O'Brien. Listening to each in turn makes me viscerally support whoever they are criticising but both hugely entertaining. No one cares that JO'B goes off on any number of explicitly anti-Cons rants at the drop of a hat. And more power to him.
The BBC is increasingly in an untenable position and wouldn't it be ironic if Gary Lineker was the catalyst for the demise of the BBC as we know it.
JO'B gets my back up because he is explicitly rude to people he doesn't agree with in a way that none of the other presenters are. Even Nigel Farage as a presenter is polite to people he disagrees with.
I just caught a bit of him this morning and he described The Spectator as “Far Right”, which, in the context of the Lineker saga, did make me chuckle.
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.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Its utterly bonkers. Insisting they didn't buy a 6th episode. Despite having it on iPlayer.
So you have what may well be the final ever show from Sir National Treasure. Part of series you are ramping like crazy. But you insist he only made 5 shows. Despite putting the final one on your streaming platform. Because you didn't make it.
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
Surely if you find it great value you should be equally happy to pay a BBC subscription? I certainly would.
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
Its not fit for purpose though is it? There is ambiguity about who can say what.
And this is going to be a terminal issue for them because now they are stuck between a rock and a hard place:
1. They will have to say anyone not involved in news and current affairs can say what they like. This will both ensure that the anti-BBC crowd have enough fuel to keep their crusade going about how unfair it is a PSB is allowing its staff to take political positions, and will store up another future issue for when one of their stars says something offensive to someone-or-other on SM and we go through the whole rigmarole again.
OR
2. They have to say that no political discussion is permitted which will (I have little doubt, from this weekends events) lead to all its stars doing some boycott of the BBC in the interests of freedom of speech/social justice/whatever until it reconsiders it’s stance.
Either way the model is broken and they’re not going to be able to fix this. A Labour government will save them in the short term, but it won’t be long before the structure collapses.
Then they probably need leadership appointed by someone other than this or recent Conservative governments, who are evidently happy with managed decline.
They probably do, but by and large all we hear politically from Labour is about protecting the licence fee, they show no more recognition of the trouble the BBC is in than the BBC itself. I'd expect Labour to try and hobble the streaming companies before it considered restructuring the BBC and rethinking public service broadcasting.
Good luck trying to put the Internet back in its box.
I agree, but politicians are more than capable of persuading themselves that they can do the impossible.
It is funny to watch them try though, I’ll give you that!
Today’s kids (18-30s) watch almost no live TV apart from sport, and that isn’t going to get any better in the future. I’m 45 and fall into that category. My parents watch TV, but they’re in their seventies.
Yes, but those in their Seventies do watch TV, and are the Tory core vote. Tearing up another venerable British institution may not go down well with their own voters, and is unlikely to gain anything from young voters.
"A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
Did he refer to Albania? How about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria?
Albania is where many of those in the boats are coming from.
Does that mean that Gary thinks economic migrants can go fuck themselves?
I have no idea what Gary thinks about Albanians. I don't believe they should be coming here, but if Lineker does I defend his right to say so. However that wasn't the point of his post was it? You just introduced Albanians. He never mentioned them.
There are those who have a justifiable claim to stay here because of the persecution they face in their own country. (One can only speculate as to why they feel the need to travel through a large number of safe countries but insist on ploughing on over the waves to Blighty.)
There are those who have no justifiable claim but are simply seeking a better life for themselves/family than their own nation's government provide them with.
Those in the first group would be a manageable number, were it not for those in the second group who have broken the asylum seeker system.
Gary Lineker has great sympathy for those in the first group. He is not alone in that.However, he expresses no condemnation for those in the second group who have broken the system. As such, he fails to address the nature of the problem faced by Government. Not only are there no answers, there are no acknowledgements of the questions.
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.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Its utterly bonkers. Insisting they didn't buy a 6th episode. Despite having it on iPlayer.
So you have what may well be the final ever show from Sir National Treasure. Part of series you are ramping like crazy. But you insist he only made 5 shows. Despite putting the final one on your streaming platform. Because you didn't make it.
Erm...
Not saying this is what happened, but it's possible they 'bought' the sixth episode for a reduced fee, as it would be on iPlayer, without a licence for broadcast?
(That assumes purchasing it for iPlayer would be less than for broadcast and iPlayer, which I think makes sense.)
Then they probably need leadership appointed by someone other than this or recent Conservative governments, who are evidently happy with managed decline.
They probably do, but by and large all we hear politically from Labour is about protecting the licence fee, they show no more recognition of the trouble the BBC is in than the BBC itself. I'd expect Labour to try and hobble the streaming companies before it considered restructuring the BBC and rethinking public service broadcasting.
Good luck trying to put the Internet back in its box.
I agree, but politicians are more than capable of persuading themselves that they can do the impossible.
It is funny to watch them try though, I’ll give you that!
Today’s kids (18-30s) watch almost no live TV apart from sport, and that isn’t going to get any better in the future. I’m 45 and fall into that category. My parents watch TV, but they’re in their seventies.
Yes, but those in their Seventies do watch TV, and are the Tory core vote. Tearing up another venerable British institution may not go down well with their own voters, and is unlikely to gain anything from young voters.
Two decades from now, I’ll hopefully be retired, but still watching mostly Netflix and Youtube rather than the TV. My parents, well they probably won’t be watching TV either, and the kids born today will probably have their phones implanted into their brains playing video on demand.
Even if the BBC are telling the truth on the Attenborough documentary the stench of cowering against the Tories and the right wing press remains .
Why would you put on 5 episodes and then stick effectively the most important onto iPlayer . So the motive behind the series being only 5 on the main channel remains .
It is funny to watch them try though, I’ll give you that!
Today’s kids (18-30s) watch almost no live TV apart from sport, and that isn’t going to get any better in the future. I’m 45 and fall into that category. My parents watch TV, but they’re in their seventies.
If it wasn't "the BBC" you would look at the audience share and viewing hours broken down be demographics and conclude that the BBC is already done for. The BBC lumbers on in much the same way it always has but beneath the surface the people who will be expected to pick up the tab in the years ahead have already by and large given up watching the BBC. YouTube alone is watched as much as *all* TV channels and recorded TV, by the 16-34 age group.
If you were given the job of creating a public service broadcaster today it would look nothing like the BBC, becuase what we watch, how we watch it, and when watch it have completely tranformed over the last decade or so for everyone without a grey hair.
Even if the BBC are telling the truth on the Attenborough documentary the stench of cowering against the Tories and the right wing press remains .
Why would you put on 5 episodes and then stick effectively the most important onto iPlayer . So the motive behind the series being only 5 on the main channel remains .
Why is it "effectively the most important" when it appears to be an advertorial?
Comments
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/union-ib-minister-anurag-thakur-takes-a-dig-at-bbc-after-lineker-episode/articleshow/98571483.cms
'In remarks intended to embarrass the British public services broadcaster after it pressed ahead with the broadcast of a controversial two-part documentary on the Godhra riots that had irked India, Union I&B minister Anurag Thakur on Saturday took a dig at BBC and said that while it "makes lofty claims about journalistic objectivity and independence ", its actions back home proved otherwise.'
'"Fake narrative setting and ethical journalism are inherently contradictory. Those indulging in malicious propaganda forged in concocted facts can obviously never be expected to have the moral fibre or the courage to stand up for journalistic independence," the Union Minister said on Twitter.'
Basically Lineker has entirely won. Nothing changes in terms of social media in the short term.
So the BBC finds itself in that most BBC of positions- where by the crisis’ end, everyone is angry. The BBC no longer has any kudos from the right in acting on what they see as an impartiality question. Everyone else is still furious for it happening in the first place.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1635222004105351168?s=46
It is no way for a broadcaster (leaving aside ownership) to behave.
This must surely hasten and intensify debate around the BBC funding.
A Labour government will delay some of the pressure on the BBCs future in all likelihood. Problem for the BBC is that it won’t take much for a similar controversy to kick off on the other side of the spectrum. And once this causes issues for a Labour government there is no going back.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
And that way madness lies
https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1635221458661285889
I expect that going forward, all the grey will be very black and white. The legacy of this will be that Gary will have made it far more difficult to express an opinion, whether a BBC employee or a contractor.
An apology has now been issued...
I am sure they are delighted
EU and Swiss passports no line
British: half hour queue
https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1634949153175539719?s=46
The thing that has always irritated me in BBC interviews with, say, the Russia Today is when the BBC interviewer says "well you would say that as a state-owned broadcaster" without a hint of self-awareness.
The BBC is a state-owned broadcaster but is doing backflips to somehow create an illusion of being an independent broadcaster.
But it doesn't matter - until there are zero people from problem zones seeking asylum his comment holds true no matter how much you hate it.
Again if you want to fix boat immigration - the only way is @Malmesbury 's approach on employing illegal workers - £100,000 fine with incentives on reporting...
Within hours you would know who was an illegal immigrant.
wind 15.6 , cgt 3.2 and nuclear 4.1 = by my maths 22.9....yet demand is 32.2 where is the other 10gw coming from?
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
(tis usually France/Netherlands/Norway/Belgium)
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
Does that mean that Gary thinks economic migrants can go fuck themselves?
tragic...
(Wind is 20GW right now apparently!)
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
Con 27% (-4)
Lab 50% (+3)
Lib Dem 9% (+1)
Other 15% (+1)
Fieldwork: 10th - 13th March 2023
Sample: 1,561 GB adults
(Changes from 2nd - 6th March 2023)
https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1635226204155576320
Though looks very much like a government own goal.
Let's go to VAR, and see if management get a red card.
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
Tories and bosses massively overreact and throw weight around is.
Without the latter, few would have cared, and it would be forgotten already.
The problem for the Tories is that doing and saying nothing is not possible during an election campaign.
Today’s kids (18-30s) watch almost no live TV apart from sport, and that isn’t going to get any better in the future. I’m 45 and fall into that category. My parents watch TV, but they’re in their seventies.
Look at LBC. Nick Ferrari followed by James O'Brien. Listening to each in turn makes me viscerally support whoever they are criticising but both hugely entertaining. No one cares that JO'B goes off on any number of explicitly anti-Cons rants at the drop of a hat. And more power to him.
The BBC is increasingly in an untenable position and wouldn't it be ironic if Gary Lineker was the catalyst for the demise of the BBC as we know it.
I'd say that's French nuclear and Norwegian hydro being better than CCGT at this instant (maybe we are exporting gas as gas which would not appear on the elec charts but may impact), which is interesting.
Rewilding is great where appropriate.
In the same way that development is great where appropriate.
Land use has always changed over time in multiple ways.
And I've seen lots of former agricultural land, former industrial land and former railway land which has been improved by rewilding.
Of course it has to be done competently:
A scheme to rewild marshland east of Amsterdam has been savaged by an official report and sparked public protest after deer, horses and cattle died over the winter
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/27/dutch-rewilding-experiment-backfires-as-thousands-of-animals-starve
Hiding in a fridge. Speaking only to small cadres of supporters.
It's been good to see that curtain-twiching tendency faced down, at least for now.
Just rejoice at that news, as the Lady said.
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
Lineker was allowed to say it.
Then the BBC decided the Government wouldn't like it and tried to rewrite the rules retrospectively.
So you have what may well be the final ever show from Sir National Treasure. Part of series you are ramping like crazy. But you insist he only made 5 shows. Despite putting the final one on your streaming platform. Because you didn't make it.
Erm...
'Be a shame if anything happened to this luvverly little public broadcasting outfit you've got 'ere'
1. They will have to say anyone not involved in news and current affairs can say what they like. This will both ensure that the anti-BBC crowd have enough fuel to keep their crusade going about how unfair it is a PSB is allowing its staff to take political positions, and will store up another future issue for when one of their stars says something offensive to someone-or-other on SM and we go through the whole rigmarole again.
OR
2. They have to say that no political discussion is permitted which will (I have little doubt, from this weekends events) lead to all its stars doing some boycott of the BBC in the interests of freedom of speech/social justice/whatever until it reconsiders it’s stance.
Either way the model is broken and they’re not going to be able to fix this. A Labour government will save them in the short term, but it won’t be long before the structure collapses.
There are those who have no justifiable claim but are simply seeking a better life for themselves/family than their own nation's government provide them with.
Those in the first group would be a manageable number, were it not for those in the second group who have broken the asylum seeker system.
Gary Lineker has great sympathy for those in the first group. He is not alone in that.However, he expresses no condemnation for those in the second group who have broken the system. As such, he fails to address the nature of the problem faced by Government. Not only are there no answers, there are no acknowledgements of the questions.
Hence his position is bollocks.
(That assumes purchasing it for iPlayer would be less than for broadcast and iPlayer, which I think makes sense.)
Why would you put on 5 episodes and then stick effectively the most important onto iPlayer . So the motive behind the series being only 5 on the main channel remains .
If you were given the job of creating a public service broadcaster today it would look nothing like the BBC, becuase what we watch, how we watch it, and when watch it have completely tranformed over the last decade or so for everyone without a grey hair.