Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Why the BBC Lineker dispute could get a lot worse – politicalbetting.com

1234568

Comments

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,520
    TimS said:

    I’m not sure I’ve ever conducted or been subject to a straw poll on a political issue while down the pub. And whenever politics has come up as a pub topic the points of view of people almost never fall neatly into pro or anti.
    Massively depends on where you go too. Eg when I'm in the Flask in Hampstead, that's one thing; if I find myself at the Cock in Kilburn, it's quite another. But you're right, in neither would there be much of a consensus on any political issue bar obvious things like what a plank Jacob Rees Mogg is.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    WillG said:

    So the reason SVP didn't have higher capital buffers was because it was below the threshold for being a Systematically Important Bank. SVB had an asset threshold of $209bn and the threshold was $250bn. This is because Trump deregulated banks in 2018, and upped the threshold from Obama's $50bn.

    Meanwhile Ron DeSantis is blaming the failure on SVB being "too woke".

    Naturlich.

    RDS is fellow-traveller along with Boris, Liz, Rishi, etc., etc., on the theoretically libertarian > actually authoritarian bullet train.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,832

    "This fatal compromise, which even Churchill felt forced to pursue in the hope of an opportunity to strengthen Allied policy into full-blooded intervention, simply protracted the agony." - Antony Beevor, "Russia - Revolution and Civil War 1917-1921" (2022).
    The program of Russia disarmament is ongoing. See the Forbes article on tank numbers and this -

    https://wavellroom.com/2023/03/10/t90m-are-appearing-on-the-eastern-front/
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,656
    eek said:

    Yep - talking about the Big Society while cutting off everything that could support it (Surestart, libraries even) wasn't a good plan.
    I will start by saying that I have no qualms on government spending on such items if they make sense. Sadly however because of how politicians of all sides prefer in implementation we often really never know.

    We should be demanding a lot more of the following

    This is how much it will cost
    This is what it is designed to achieve
    This is how we will measure it
    This is the timescale to get to those results

    Then we can drop things if they turn out not to be producing the value claimed for the money. We also need to have those measurements published by someone like ONS so the figures don't get twisted.

    An example of this is SureStart....I have heard both it helped poor people and contrariwise that it was mostly used as cheap child care by middle classes and the poor didn't use it in numbers.

    Which is true? Damned if I know....somethings will work beyond expectations, somethings won't live upto the hype but unless they are measured against the reasons for doing them how can we know which to expand and which to ditch?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23382364.fiona-bruce-step-back-charity-role-stanley-johnson-row/?ref=ebbn

    Another front in the BBC wars.

    'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.

    The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.

    During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,832

    On rewilding, I sometimes wonder what species is intended to be the apex predator?
    https://www.classicshorts.com/stories/danger.html
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,617
    edited March 2023
    kinabalu said:

    Massively depends on where you go too. Eg when I'm in the Flask in Hampstead, that's one thing; if I find myself at the Cock in Kilburn, it's quite another. But you're right, in neither would there be much of a consensus on any political issue bar obvious things like what a plank Jacob Rees Mogg is.
    Do they still have the PIRA collection boxes in the Cock?
  • Carnyx said:

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23382364.fiona-bruce-step-back-charity-role-stanley-johnson-row/?ref=ebbn

    Another front in the BBC wars.

    'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.

    The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.

    During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'

    I do not watch QT but that is terrible
  • eekeek Posts: 29,532
    Carnyx said:

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23382364.fiona-bruce-step-back-charity-role-stanley-johnson-row/?ref=ebbn

    Another front in the BBC wars.

    'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.

    The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.

    During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'

    I'm surprised Refugee gave her an out and didn't throw her out with extreme prejudice ...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090
    Mortimer said:

    Not at all.

    That is the interesting thing.

    I'd say 8 of those 10 are not Tories. At all.

    Local farming types. All thought Clarkson would do a better job.

    For avoidance of doubt, I didn't instigate or get involved in the conversation.

    Sympathy for well paid selebs is very low indeed.
    No-one is going to believe you @Mortimer

    They are quite happy in their bubble. It should be noted that there's a clear majority in the country who didn't agree with what Lineker said, even if some of them also think he should be free to say it unhindered.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277
    Carnyx said:

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23382364.fiona-bruce-step-back-charity-role-stanley-johnson-row/?ref=ebbn

    Another front in the BBC wars.

    'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.

    The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.

    During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'

    It really was an atrocious comment . What was she thinking .
  • Carnyx said:

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23382364.fiona-bruce-step-back-charity-role-stanley-johnson-row/?ref=ebbn

    Another front in the BBC wars.

    'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.

    The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.

    During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'

    Absolutely. Isn't it every Englishman's right to break his wife's nose? Who are these woke leftists who disagree?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,401
    Carnyx said:

    Didn't have them in the postglacial era AFAIK, including the Mesolithic.
    Carnyx said:

    Didn't have them in the postglacial era AFAIK, including the Mesolithic.
    Isn't someone trying to regenerate the woolly mammoth?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,155

    Absolutely. Isn't it every Englishman's right to break his wife's nose? Who are these woke leftists who disagree?
    Snowflakes!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090
    DavidL said:

    I don't disagree with the sentiment. What I disagree with is someone who has just had an extremely public fight with his employer deciding the way to move that forward is...another tweet about immigration. Surely you can see that is an entirely gratuitous slap in their face? Basically, I won, you lost and I am going to rub your faces in it.
    It should be noted that Lineker has agreed to temper it whilst the BBC agree new social media guidelines, and so it should very well be the "final thought" for the next few weeks.

    However, no doubt he'll be goaded by his core base to do more, and he might well succumb to that.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559

    ...although not for Clarkson apparently.

    O/T I am just reading Selling Hitler by Robert Harris and it made me think of you as I believe your business is rare manuscripts etc.

    The Hitler diaries fiasco was clearly (according to Harris) a monumental series of mistakes and missed opportunities but it did make me think authentication and the risk of forgeries must be a big headache for you.

    Selling Hitler is a fascinating read.

    (PS I don't doubt your pub poll for one moment. If I asked our bookclub the same poll I bet it would be 8-0 in favour of Lineker. Different groups, neither representative though.)
    The books on the "Hitler Diaries" hoax/scam/farce are full of true hilarity.

    For example, description of the scene in the head office of (IIRC) the "Sunday Times" when they called up the distinguished Lord Daycare (sp?) to refute claims that the "diaries" he'd "authenticated" were bogus as a 3-pound note. Only to hear from the horse's (ass's) own lips that that his assurances were horsepoop.

    BTW (also FYI) this was not long after Dr. Huge Trevor-Roper had published a book about a notorious literary con artist. Ha! Ha! Ha!

    https://www.amazon.com/Hermit-Peking-Hidden-Edmund-Backhouse/dp/190601101X
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,183

    ...although not for Clarkson apparently.

    O/T I am just reading Selling Hitler by Robert Harris and it made me think of you as I believe your business is rare manuscripts etc.

    The Hitler diaries fiasco was clearly (according to Harris) a monumental series of mistakes and missed opportunities but it did make me think authentication and the risk of forgeries must be a big headache for you.

    Selling Hitler is a fascinating read.

    (PS I don't doubt your pub poll for one moment. If I asked our bookclub the same poll I bet it would be 8-0 in favour of Lineker. Different groups, neither representative though.)
    A great book isn't it!

    Forgery of books is almost non existent (the exceptions really prove the rule: https://www.openculture.com/2014/02/how-a-book-thief-forged-a-rare-edition-of-galileos-scientific-work-and-almost-pulled-it-off.html)

    So I'm relatively lucky - the real headache is in modern signatures, pop and sport memorabilia.

    My first thought when presented with one is always that a 20th century signature of a famous person is likely to be a fake without cast iron provenance, whilst a seventeenth-century signature of a minor historical character is more likely than not correct. Commerce drives fakes.

    That said, we're not immune. Shakespeare documents have been forged for over 200 years, though. William Henry Ireland was prolific! The bigger problem is facsimiles and restoration, which are often not sufficiently well understood. The better technology gets, the more this is going to be a problem.



  • Snowflakes!
    Sir Stanley Johnson. Knighted for services to I Only Broke Her Bloody Nose What's Wrong With That
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,369
    DavidL said:

    I don't disagree with the sentiment. What I disagree with is someone who has just had an extremely public fight with his employer deciding the way to move that forward is...another tweet about immigration. Surely you can see that is an entirely gratuitous slap in their face? Basically, I won, you lost and I am going to rub your faces in it.
    Maybe he just wanted to thank the people who supported him and share his compassionate and humane approach to refugees? That's how I read it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,895
    Carnyx said:

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23382364.fiona-bruce-step-back-charity-role-stanley-johnson-row/?ref=ebbn

    Another front in the BBC wars.

    'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.

    The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.

    During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'

    Her explanation that she was 'legally obliged' to say so seems odd.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,532

    It should be noted that Lineker has agreed to temper it whilst the BBC agree new social media guidelines, and so it should very well be the "final thought" for the next few weeks.

    However, no doubt he'll be goaded by his core base to do more, and he might well succumb to that.
    Did you not see his final tweet - the idea that he's subject to any actual restrictions is one for the birds.

    And yet I thought you were one for free speech. Oops I forgot, the only free speech you like is the one that reflects your worldview,
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Nigelb said:

    Another social media pest.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/CSkidmoreUK/status/1635279592629075973
    I am not prepared to break international law or the human rights conventions that the UK has had a proud history of playing a leading role in establishing.

    I will not be voting for the bill tonight.

    So how many rebels - either voting or abstaining - will there be?

    OR will the vote be . . . postponed?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,934
    WillG said:

    So the reason SVP didn't have higher capital buffers was because it was below the threshold for being a Systematically Important Bank. SVB had an asset threshold of $209bn and the threshold was $250bn. This is because Trump deregulated banks in 2018, and upped the threshold from Obama's $50bn.

    Meanwhile Ron DeSantis is blaming the failure on SVB being "too woke".

    De Santis is working hard at proving himself as moronic as Trump. What I found odd was that the Bank suffered a loss on the sale of US bonds that it had to sell to cover a series of withdrawals. These seem to amount to about $2bn which seems a relatively trivial amount for a Bank of that size.

    The real problem seems to be that once confidence was lost the withdrawals were large scale and instantaneous. Basically, unlike a lot of banks they had a lot of very cash rich clients who could move around millions at the drop of a hat. I noticed that the UK customer of the UK branch confirmed his business had millions in credit with the bank. Most banks would have a much larger, much flatter, less nimble base. Once Twitter told Finance Managers in that sector there was a problem they were hit with an avalanche.

    Personally, I suspect that HSBC have picked up a rather nice bargain here.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,127
    edited March 2023

    Anyway Scots Independence

    47/39 against

    https://news.sky.com/story/snp-leadership-scottish-independence-support-at-just-39-poll-says-12832783
    Can't really be arsed engaging on this subject with people who dumped the huge CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak shitberg in the sewers of UK politics (and vicariously on my country without the inconvenience of requiring democratic support).
    A period of silent reflection from them would be too much to ask, but taking seriously their low information long distance drivel, nah.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,155
    DavidL said:

    I don't disagree with the sentiment. What I disagree with is someone who has just had an extremely public fight with his employer deciding the way to move that forward is...another tweet about immigration. Surely you can see that is an entirely gratuitous slap in their face? Basically, I won, you lost and I am going to rub your faces in it.
    I do see where you're coming from; your comment makes more sense to me now that I see that.

    (Forgive me though if I can't help but smile at the thought of the BBC management, having cravenly given in to Braverman, Dorris et al and monumentally f*cked up the whole affair, receiving a final dig from Lineker to remind them who has won here.)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,006
    The most interesting thing about the whole affair, IMO, is that Lineker was doing what many people do - including any number of journalists and the most senior politicians: comparing something they don't like to the Nazis. It's a point of reference that's ingrained into UK discourse and culture. It really only gets tackled with history teaching providing more reference points and better context. For understandable reasons, we obsess about WW2 and the lead up to it in the UK, but it does then cloud judgement and perspective.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    edited March 2023

    I do not watch QT but that is terrible
    It's worth reading the piece - on the best interpretation it's the BBC attempt to get balance - but as we all know from e.g. the BBC and climate change deniers [edit] the BBC's idea of balance is sometimes the kind where an interview with the head of some pro-child organization has seemingly to be balanced with having Jimmy Saville on the same interview to give the BBC style balance. .

    And even on that interpretation this is an odd explanation (as quoted) from the BBC as it implies Ms Bruce had already sought a right of reply in advance:

    '"When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing on [March 9].

    "She was not expressing any personal opinion about the situation."'

    Probably just misspoke but it came out very oddly.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,617
    I mean I can see that FionaBrucegate stemmed from her huge caution and nervousness about being seen to criticise Stanley Johnson who epitomises the right, not least his son.

    Another example of the BBC being so nervous about its current approach that it ends up shooting itself in the foot for fear of being seen to be biased.

    I'm sure nothing will change with the structure of the BBC in terms of funding and ownership, but it certainly should.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,522

    It should be noted that Lineker has agreed to temper it whilst the BBC agree new social media guidelines

    No

    He has agreed to abide by the existing guidelines, which allowed him to Tweet in the first place.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,127
    Nigelb said:

    Her explanation that she was 'legally obliged' to say so seems odd.
    Particularly as it seemed to be based on incomplete informatrion.


  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277
    Effectively Bruce was suggesting it’s okay to beat your wife or partner to a pulp as long as it’s a one off .

    We live in truly strange times when Lineker who was trying to show some humanity is pulled from the schedules and Bruce green lighting domestic violence as long as it’s only once is still there !
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,183

    Can't really be arsed engaging on this subject with people who dumped the huge CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak shitberg in the sewers of UK politics (and vicariously on my country without the inconvenience of requiring democratic support).
    A period of silent reflection from them would be too much to ask, but taking seriously their low information long distance drivel, nah.
    Smarting from that poll much?
  • Can't really be arsed engaging on this subject with people who dumped the huge CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak shitberg in the sewers of UK politics (and vicariously on my country without the inconvenience of requiring democratic support).
    A period of silent reflection from them would be too much to ask, but taking seriously their low information long distance drivel, nah.
    Sky is hosting the debate tonight with Beth Rigby and this poll will feature in the debate which is on free Sky News across the UK

    You may want to be in denial but the SNP are utterly divided as independence recedes into relevance
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090
    Scott_xP said:

    No

    He has agreed to abide by the existing guidelines, which allowed him to Tweet in the first place.
    He was supposed to be abiding by them last week, but he didn't.

    He has agreed to stick by the current guidelines whilst the review is undertaken. So I think this means he will cool it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090
    eek said:

    Did you not see his final tweet - the idea that he's subject to any actual restrictions is one for the birds.

    And yet I thought you were one for free speech. Oops I forgot, the only free speech you like is the one that reflects your worldview,
    Rubbish, I've repeatedly underlined my position over recent days and you know full well that isn't it.

    I don't have time to argue with you, as I'm working, but I can see it would be a total waste of my time if I did anyway.
  • Carnyx said:

    It's worth reading the piece - on the best interpretation it's the BBC attempt to get balance - but as we all know from e.g. the BBC and climate change deniers [edit] the BBC's idea of balance is sometimes the kind where an interview with the head of some pro-child organization has seemingly to be balanced with having Jimmy Saville on the same interview to give the BBC style balance. .

    And even on that interpretation this is an odd explanation (as quoted) from the BBC as it implies Ms Bruce had already sought a right of reply in advance:

    '"When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing on [March 9].

    "She was not expressing any personal opinion about the situation."'

    Probably just misspoke but it came out very oddly.
    I don't get it though. He broke his wife's nose. That isn't denied. So calling him a wife-beater isn't something which needs to be debated or counter-balanced. He put her in hospital.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,520
    TOPPING said:

    Do they still have the PIRA collection boxes in the Cock?
    The whole thing has gone now actually. Kilburn has lost its ... one of its best known Irish public houses.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    TOPPING said:

    I mean I can see that FionaBrucegate stemmed from her huge caution and nervousness about being seen to criticise Stanley Johnson who epitomises the right, not least his son.

    Another example of the BBC being so nervous about its current approach that it ends up shooting itself in the foot for fear of being seen to be biased.

    I'm sure nothing will change with the structure of the BBC in terms of funding and ownership, but it certainly should.

    That I can believe, though presenters are supposed to be able to think on their feet!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,155
    edited March 2023

    Sir Stanley Johnson. Knighted for services to I Only Broke Her Bloody Nose What's Wrong With That
    I Only Broke Her Bloody Nose once. Let's not overstate the offence, eh?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak is presumably a compound German noun to describe the trashing your own country while preserving the arses of the undeserving rich.

    'During the early part of the 21st century the UK endured a devastating CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak.'
    CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunakClusterFuck
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,953

    The most interesting thing about the whole affair, IMO, is that Lineker was doing what many people do - including any number of journalists and the most senior politicians: comparing something they don't like to the Nazis. It's a point of reference that's ingrained into UK discourse and culture. It really only gets tackled with history teaching providing more reference points and better context. For understandable reasons, we obsess about WW2 and the lead up to it in the UK, but it does then cloud judgement and perspective.

    An attitude that was satirized though Basil Fawlty when ranting at some less-than-satisfied hotel guests: 'Well let me tell you something - this is exactly how Nazi Germany started! A lot of layabouts with nothing better to do than to cause trouble!'
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,895
    I've said for a while that Slotkin is a rising name in the Democratic Party.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/13/democrats-senate-michigan-stabenow-slotkin-00086655
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    DavidL said:

    I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.

    And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
    As if the last week hadn't caused enough damage to the BBC, Gary Linekar decided that he could not be gracious enough to give his own ego the day off even just briefly on the day the matter was finally settled. But when you decide to make yourself the man that is bigger than the rest of the coporation, you simple undermine it even further in its current form. I am now sure we will not have long to wait until another Linekar twitter controversy blows up and makes life difficult for his BBC bosses and colleagues.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,522

    He was supposed to be abiding by them last week, but he didn't.

    His tweet last week was within the guidelines.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,617
    kinabalu said:

    The whole thing has gone now actually. Kilburn has lost its ... one of its best known Irish public houses.
    Ah seriously? That's a shame.

    So you couldn't have found yourself at the Cock but a good rhetorical touch nevertheless.
  • eek said:

    +1 - the current landscape of the Dales, Moors and Lakes is because sheep farming not in spite of it.

    If sheep weren't there things would rapidly look very different.
    Some people seem to agree with both the following statements:
    "We need more wilderness" and "We need to support hill farmers to stop the land reverting to wilderness".
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277
    Until the Tories are removed from office their metastasising cancer on everything we hold dear will continue .

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    I don't get it though. He broke his wife's nose. That isn't denied. So calling him a wife-beater isn't something which needs to be debated or counter-balanced. He put her in hospital.
    Doesn't make logical sense. On at least one interpretation the BBC comes out as officially condoning "wifebeating (well, just the once is OK)" or at least seeming to think it is an acceptable position to hold in public discourse. But then none of the interpretastions make sense. I think she just misspoke disastrously.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559

    The most interesting thing about the whole affair, IMO, is that Lineker was doing what many people do - including any number of journalists and the most senior politicians: comparing something they don't like to the Nazis. It's a point of reference that's ingrained into UK discourse and culture. It really only gets tackled with history teaching providing more reference points and better context. For understandable reasons, we obsess about WW2 and the lead up to it in the UK, but it does then cloud judgement and perspective.

    Comparing or linking anything with Nazis (short of the Goebbels Diaries anyway) is highly problematic ANYWHERE, at least in English-speaking world. Because 99% of the time it is counter-productive due to backlash and blowback, for being ipso facto over the top.

    Garygate is interesting because, thanks to masterful handing by BBB on behalf of HMG, it is the EXCEPTION that proves this rule.

    Is there really much doubt, that IF the Beeb and Tories had simply gone the usual route, of attacking Lineker's use of the N-word but NOT demanding his head on a pike, this would have been at best a one-day wonder, with the onus being on GL?
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,750

    I do see where you're coming from; your comment makes more sense to me now that I see that.

    (Forgive me though if I can't help but smile at the thought of the BBC management, having cravenly given in to Braverman, Dorris et al and monumentally f*cked up the whole affair, receiving a final dig from Lineker to remind them who has won here.)
    Is he owning the cons?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    Some people seem to agree with both the following statements:
    "We need more wilderness" and "We need to support hill farmers to stop the land reverting to wilderness".
    Happy with some of both myself. ATM the Tory view seems to be to have none of either, it sometimes seems.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    No-one is going to believe you @Mortimer

    They are quite happy in their bubble. It should be noted that there's a clear majority in the country who didn't agree with what Lineker said, even if some of them also think he should be free to say it unhindered.
    That's where I'm at tbh, football pundits should be free to say whatever they please. No one's forcing me to agree with them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,895
    edited March 2023

    He was supposed to be abiding by them last week, but he didn't.

    He has agreed to stick by the current guidelines whilst the review is undertaken. So I think this means he will cool it.
    There's considerable uncertainty quite what the current guidelines are, when applied to non news presenters.

    The DG himself referred to 'ambiguity'.

    The idea, suggested upthread, that the BBC will slowtime the review, to shut people up in the meantime, seems misguided.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,520

    It should be noted that Lineker has agreed to temper it whilst the BBC agree new social media guidelines, and so it should very well be the "final thought" for the next few weeks.

    However, no doubt he'll be goaded by his core base to do more, and he might well succumb to that.
    Gary Lineker has a 'core base'?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,393

    No-one is going to believe you @Mortimer

    They are quite happy in their bubble. It should be noted that there's a clear majority in the country who didn't agree with what Lineker said, even if some of them also think he should be free to say it unhindered.
    Conservative_Royale
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    nico679 said:

    Good grief no 10 are so fxcking clueless .

    Surely providing more safe and legal routes would help lower the amount of boat crossings . They’re now saying until the boats are stopped there won’t be any new safe and legal routes .

    That isn't true at all. The more people that come via any route, the more pull it creates for future migrants via any route. This was demonstrated extremely clearly with Merkel. There isn't a fixed amount of potential migrants that can come given the huge chunk of the world in warzones or dictatorships.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366

    Comparing or linking anything with Nazis (short of the Goebbels Diaries anyway) is highly problematic ANYWHERE, at least in English-speaking world. Because 99% of the time it is counter-productive due to backlash and blowback, for being ipso facto over the top.

    Garygate is interesting because, thanks to masterful handing by BBB on behalf of HMG, it is the EXCEPTION that proves this rule.

    Is there really much doubt, that IF the Beeb and Tories had simply gone the usual route, of attacking Lineker's use of the N-word but NOT demanding his head on a pike, this would have been at best a one-day wonder, with the onus being on GL?
    Which is exactly what I said they should do.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,155

    Comparing or linking anything with Nazis (short of the Goebbels Diaries anyway) is highly problematic ANYWHERE, at least in English-speaking world. Because 99% of the time it is counter-productive due to backlash and blowback, for being ipso facto over the top.

    Garygate is interesting because, thanks to masterful handing by BBB on behalf of HMG, it is the EXCEPTION that proves this rule.

    Is there really much doubt, that IF the Beeb and Tories had simply gone the usual route, of attacking Lineker's use of the N-word but NOT demanding his head on a pike, this would have been at best a one-day wonder, with the onus being on GL?
    Point of order: Linekler did not use the N-word.

    But yes, the BBC and HMG went full Streisand on this with predictable results.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,127
    edited March 2023
    Mortimer said:

    Smarting from that poll much?
    Low information long distance drivellers, tenshun!

    I remember you crowing mistakenly over an indy poll that turned out to be several months old. If you think a poll taken when the SNP is at its lowest point that has support of the Union lower than at the referendum is something to be excited about, fill yer boots.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,934

    I do see where you're coming from; your comment makes more sense to me now that I see that.

    (Forgive me though if I can't help but smile at the thought of the BBC management, having cravenly given in to Braverman, Dorris et al and monumentally f*cked up the whole affair, receiving a final dig from Lineker to remind them who has won here.)
    For the avoidance of doubt I do not hold a candle for the BBC management. They have screwed this up royally and have been publicly humiliated as a result. If I was going to accuse my most high profile employees of breaching my guidance I would make very, very sure I was right. If I had guidance which very deliberately had "grey areas" in it from only 3 years ago I would have been extremely cautious. Suspending him in these circumstances was, courageous, to put it kindly.

    But that does not excuse Lineker being an arse.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560

    Low information long distance drivellers, tenshun!

    I remember you crowing mistakenly over an indy poll that turned out to be several months old. If you think a poll when the SNP is at its lowest point that has support of the Union lower than at the referendum is sometthing to be excited about, fill yer boots.
    You're assuming the SNP is at its lowest point.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,480
    nico679 said:

    Good grief no 10 are so fxcking clueless .

    Surely providing more safe and legal routes would help lower the amount of boat crossings . They’re now saying until the boats are stopped there won’t be any new safe and legal routes .

    What they really mean is we don’t want any safe routes and want to stop any refugees . What a shameful day for this country . Absolutely disgustingl

    Would your solution to small boats be to send a big boat to pick everyone up?
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,771
    nico679 said:

    It really was an atrocious comment . What was she thinking .
    It was an atrocious comment.

    I would also like to know what was coming from the gallery into her earpiece - was she instructed to say that, and if so, by whom?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,520

    Sir Stanley Johnson. Knighted for services to I Only Broke Her Bloody Nose What's Wrong With That
    That knighthood is surely to goodness off. Amazing it could ever have been considered. I thought it was a pisstake when I first heard about it. Suppose it was in a sense. Rather like the whole of Boris Johnson's political career.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,813
    fitalass said:

    As if the last week hadn't caused enough damage to the BBC, Gary Linekar decided that he could not be gracious enough to give his own ego the day off even just briefly on the day the matter was finally settled. But when you decide to make yourself the man that is bigger than the rest of the coporation, you simple undermine it even further in its current form. I am now sure we will not have long to wait until another Linekar twitter controversy blows up and makes life difficult for his BBC bosses and colleagues.
    Do you think BBC management was in the least bit "gracious" or intended to make his life anything other than difficult when it wrongly suspended Lineker?
  • Low information long distance drivellers, tenshun!

    I remember you crowing mistakenly over an indy poll that turned out to be several months old. If you think a poll taken when the SNP is at its lowest point that has support of the Union lower than at the referendum is something to be excited about, fill yer boots.
    Not at its lowest point yet though and you do sound in denial
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,275
    Pagan2 said:

    I will start by saying that I have no qualms on government spending on such items if they make sense. Sadly however because of how politicians of all sides prefer in implementation we often really never know.

    We should be demanding a lot more of the following

    This is how much it will cost
    This is what it is designed to achieve
    This is how we will measure it
    This is the timescale to get to those results

    Then we can drop things if they turn out not to be producing the value claimed for the money. We also need to have those measurements published by someone like ONS so the figures don't get twisted.

    An example of this is SureStart....I have heard both it helped poor people and contrariwise that it was mostly used as cheap child care by middle classes and the poor didn't use it in numbers.

    Which is true? Damned if I know....somethings will work beyond expectations, somethings won't live upto the hype but unless they are measured against the reasons for doing them how can we know which to expand and which to ditch?
    This is an interesting one.

    You are right of course that when working with finite resource and public funds there is a pressure to show demonstrable outcomes. However I think to fixate too much on this requires too much interventionism and inflexibility.

    I can agree that the government should be a facilitator of community services. As someone who has that centre-right belief in personal agency and accountability and is a bit suspicious of top-down directives and micromanagement, I believe the people who run those services are the ones who have the best knowledge of their local communities and how they are engaged and best supported. Yes there needs to be some sort of metric to measure funding formulae (attendance is usually the bluntest but easiest tool), but a lot of the benefits of these services are much harder to measure - e.g a successful youth service might help in reducing anti social behaviour, but it is hard to make the jump from X to Y.

    I think I come down on the side of periodic audits, more than anything else.
  • AlistairM said:
    In unrelated news I’m moving to Berlin.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277

    Would your solution to small boats be to send a big boat to pick everyone up?
    Do you support safe and legal routes ? If you do then that policy needs to be enacted ASAP. By saying no safe and legal routes until the boats have stopped means those routes will never be available.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,895
    MaxPB said:

    That's where I'm at tbh, football pundits should be free to say whatever they please. No one's forcing me to agree with them.
    Or even take any notice of them.
    The only interest I have in the story is certainly not prompted by any ongoing curiosity about his opinions, even though I agree with his opposition to Braverman's policy.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,934

    Maybe he just wanted to thank the people who supported him and share his compassionate and humane approach to refugees? That's how I read it.
    You're obviously a much nicer person than me. But then, we knew that already. 😉
  • eekeek Posts: 29,532
    edited March 2023

    I for one believe Mortimer, I just don't think his pub poll is likely to be that representative. Anymore than my (somewhat leftie) bookclub would be.

    We are all in our own bubbles to a large degree. That's what makes PB so fascinating - we get to argue/debate with people of vehemently different views.
    I also view it as a pub situation - in which case it's very likely people are agreeing with Mr "always looking for an argument" because they just wanted a quiet drink.

    Heck I do that fairly often...
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,771
    FF43 said:

    Do you think BBC management was in the least bit "gracious" or intended to make his life anything other than difficult when it wrongly suspended Lineker?
    "finally settled" - yes; that's right. It is clearly "settled" with no fall-out to come.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    First, I condemn what Fiona Bruce is reported to have said re: Stanley Johnson.

    Second, have to think it was a monumental mistake on her part become the talking head for QT.

    Third, here in the USA, the only thing that FB is known for, is as (former?) presenter for Antique Road Show. Which is great, indeed much better than the US copy-cat. And she's a major part of the show's appeal, at least on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific)?

    What possessed her to say what she said? Somehow doubt it was due to desire to propitiate Tory establishment, seeing has how most of them likely have same fond view of Boris Johnson (in private anyway) as the Republican establishment currently has (ditto) of Donald Trump.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,127
    Driver said:

    You're assuming the SNP is at its lowest point.
    Well, you're perfectly entitled to assume it isn't, but I'm not sure how credible your insights in the matter are.
    Fyi the polling gap between Yes and No has been greater than 8pts over twenty times since 2014, and that's not including the laughable Scotland in Union efforts.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,532

    Conservative_Royale
    GBNews_Royale is more like it
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,895
    AlistairM said:
    Or tradition, if you prefer a conservative gaming.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,183

    Low information long distance drivellers, tenshun!

    I remember you crowing mistakenly over an indy poll that turned out to be several months old. If you think a poll taken when the SNP is at its lowest point that has support of the Union lower than at the referendum is something to be excited about, fill yer boots.
    Feels like the trend is our friend.

    Unionists that is.

    Not those who want to tear up this great country.
  • Carnyx said:

    Doesn't make logical sense. On at least one interpretation the BBC comes out as officially condoning "wifebeating (well, just the once is OK)" or at least seeming to think it is an acceptable position to hold in public discourse. But then none of the interpretastions make sense. I think she just misspoke disastrously.
    I have rewatched the clip. Panellist says in passing that Stanley Johnson was a "wife-beater on record". Ken Clarke raises both eyebrows and Fiona Bruce waves her arms wildly to stop the conversation. She says:
    "I'm not disputing what you're saying, but just so that everyone knows what this is referring to" and then paraphrases what Mrs Johnson had said to a journalist, that Stanley hadn't commented on it publicly, "friends of his have said that it did happen, but it was a one-off" complete with a dismissive wave of the hand
    At which point the panellist completes the event with "but it did happen"

    As Stanley Johnson has neither denied it, nor has offered any statement to the contrary in his defence, this does seem to be "on record" as the panellist said. So why does Bruce need to give him a virtual right of reply?

    "But it was a one-off" is the phrase that pays. Yes he beat his wife, but it was a one-off. Yes I murdered someone, but it was a one-off. Yes I committed bestiality, but it was a one-off.

    And the wider context? They were debating a question about how on earth the Tories have created a system where all kinds of crooks and charlatans can be nominated for awards. So her defence of his one-off wife beating was literally in defence of him being nominated for a Knighthood by his son.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,520

    I for one believe Mortimer, I just don't think his pub poll is likely to be that representative. Anymore than my (somewhat leftie) bookclub would be.

    We are all in our own bubbles to a large degree. That's what makes PB so fascinating - we get to argue/debate with people of vehemently different views.
    Well the clientele are apparently "local farming types who think Clarkson would do a better job on MOTD".

    Mine's a SWIFT half!
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560

    Well, you're perfectly entitled to assume it isn't, but I'm not sure how credible your insights in the matter are.
    Fyi the polling gap between Yes and No has been greater than 8pts over twenty times since 2014, and that's not including the laughable Scotland in Union efforts.
    I'm not assuming anything either way. The SNP leadership candidates' comments in recent days on future referendum dates are quite interesting.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559

    Point of order: Linekler did not use the N-word.

    But yes, the BBC and HMG went full Streisand on this with predictable results.
    Personally think the "Lineker did not use the N-word" is a load of hooey, as it's obvious (at least to me) that his tweet was carefully crafted to NOT directly say "Nazi" but to make it crystal clear (that is, Kristallnacht clear) precisely to whom he was referring.

    Certainly NOT the German Bund of Birdwatchers!
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,279

    Point of order: Linekler did not use the N-word.

    But yes, the BBC and HMG went full Streisand on this with predictable results.
    I'm not sure there is any such rule against such comparisons. It always depends on the situation.
    eg here's the Independent comparing Katie Hopkins to Hitler, despite Katie Hopkins not being responsible for murdering 6 million people:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/katie-hopkins-when-is-enough-enough-10186490.html

    headline:

    'Katie Hopkins has just written a piece so hateful that it might give Hitler pause – why was it published?'
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,895
    Remains of Roman aristocrat unearthed in ‘extraordinary’ cemetery near Leeds
    Archaeologists hail ‘once in a lifetime’ discovery of Roman and Saxon site dating back 1,600 years
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/13/remains-roman-aristocrat-extraordinary-cemetery-leeds
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,934
    WillG said:

    That isn't true at all. The more people that come via any route, the more pull it creates for future migrants via any route. This was demonstrated extremely clearly with Merkel. There isn't a fixed amount of potential migrants that can come given the huge chunk of the world in warzones or dictatorships.
    Yep, the idea that taking 100k from the dreadful camps around the disaster that was Syria would reduce the number seeking to cross the channel at all is absurdly optimistic, actually naive.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Question - does BruceGate diminish the likelihood, that Stanley Johnson is actually gonna get knighted?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,155

    Question - does BruceGate diminish the likelihood, that Stanley Johnson is actually gonna get knighted?

    Massively.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,430

    The fact that no one was actually recognised from their jersey doesn't stop people from making jerseys which would make that possible.
    It's a bit like prayer!
    True, but its an oft repeated tale that has no basis. Different knitters had their patterns, but not for the reason of identifying their dead loved ones...
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,651
    Tell you what. One of the best things about this country are the snap polls that take place at the end of every evening in the sort of “Everyman” pub @Mortimer frequents and that the rest of us as strangers to.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,155

    Personally think the "Lineker did not use the N-word" is a load of hooey, as it's obvious (at least to me) that his tweet was carefully crafted to NOT directly say "Nazi" but to make it crystal clear (that is, Kristallnacht clear) precisely to whom he was referring.

    Certainly NOT the German Bund of Birdwatchers!
    True, true, but facts is facts.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277
    edited March 2023
    There are no safe and legal routes to the UK available to the vast majority of those crossing on boats now .

    So effectively asylum is now off the table for many who would have passed the threshold for that . The bill regardless of what no 10 have lied about does allow for the detention and deportation of children.

    And this bill is being pushed as compassionate and moral ! One wonders what yardstick this government is using !

    I suppose we should be grateful they weren’t put against a wall and shot !
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,127
    Mortimer said:

    Feels like the trend is our friend.

    Unionists that is.

    Not those who want to tear up this great country.
    I salute the efforts of you and others who kept pumping CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak down your lavvies, your contributions to tearing up this great(sic) country have been inestimable.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,275

    I have rewatched the clip. Panellist says in passing that Stanley Johnson was a "wife-beater on record". Ken Clarke raises both eyebrows and Fiona Bruce waves her arms wildly to stop the conversation. She says:
    "I'm not disputing what you're saying, but just so that everyone knows what this is referring to" and then paraphrases what Mrs Johnson had said to a journalist, that Stanley hadn't commented on it publicly, "friends of his have said that it did happen, but it was a one-off" complete with a dismissive wave of the hand
    At which point the panellist completes the event with "but it did happen"

    As Stanley Johnson has neither denied it, nor has offered any statement to the contrary in his defence, this does seem to be "on record" as the panellist said. So why does Bruce need to give him a virtual right of reply?

    "But it was a one-off" is the phrase that pays. Yes he beat his wife, but it was a one-off. Yes I murdered someone, but it was a one-off. Yes I committed bestiality, but it was a one-off.

    And the wider context? They were debating a question about how on earth the Tories have created a system where all kinds of crooks and charlatans can be nominated for awards. So her defence of his one-off wife beating was literally in defence of him being nominated for a Knighthood by his son.
    I feel a bit for her because I don’t think she was actually trying to make excuses for him, I think she was caught in a tricky situation on live telly and panicked and she accidentally engaged the “both sides of the argument” brain when she should have just said something a bit non-committal and disclaimer-y.
This discussion has been closed.