The support for Gary Lineker should worry ministers – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
I am going to stick my neck out here and say that we have seen peak SNP. They have had an excellent run over the last 10 years or so with 2 very strong leaders but the wheels are coming off and the replacements don't look up to it.kle4 said:
Never worth the risk (notwithstanding that the request for one should have been granted on a democratic basis).DavidL said:
It's almost tempting to agree the referendum after all...but not quite.TheScreamingEagles said:Big shift.
I'm always a pessimist on these matters, so I'm just waiting for the number to surge back up once the SNP finish their internal squabble and reassert discipline, reassuring the wider Yes movement.
None of which suggests that Scotland is likely to be competently governed any time soon.1 -
It's genuineBartholomewRoberts said:I've just seen this, is this genuine or fake?
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1633158789103747072?cxt=HHwWgICw5YHRkqotAAAA
If they claim the problem is abuse of UK systems by claiming to be a modern slave that should have been the graphic, that you won't get to abuse it.0 -
Bloody love that song. But Amanda Palmer's eyebrows are terrifying.rcs1000 said:
Leeds United, you say?Northern_Al said:
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks.HYUFD said:I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
(He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
https://youtu.be/jlJ9z_LowBI1 -
I'd be able to come up with one.Anabobazina said:
I’d struggle to think of ten million things, or even a million things - at any time.Casino_Royale said:
I can think of ten million things I'd rather be doing than watching that.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky promoting the SNP leader debate at 8.00pm on Monday 13th March hosted by Rigby
And yes, I have bets on.
Having a pint with you, for a start.0 -
It is unfair, and you're probably correct as to why.JosiasJessop said:
"smooth-talking"?Northern_Al said:
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks.HYUFD said:I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
(He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
I'm not into football, so I don't see him often. But when I do see him, he has the charisma and presence of a wet lettuce. Perhaps that is unfair, because of the first clause.
Whether or not you think it's enough to justify his wage or agree with his politics, Lineker is an excellent sports anchor - experienced, knowledgeable, well connected in football, engaging, and able to keep the conversation flowing with pundits.5 -
I think she's a pretty formidable lady all around.Cookie said:
Bloody love that song. But Amanda Palmer's eyebrows are terrifying.rcs1000 said:
Leeds United, you say?Northern_Al said:
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks.HYUFD said:I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
(He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
https://youtu.be/jlJ9z_LowBI0 -
Sickening. 🤮TheScreamingEagles said:
Posted last night and it is genuine.BartholomewRoberts said:I've just seen this, is this genuine or fake?
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1633158789103747072
I'd already lost my respect for Sunak, this makes it sink even lower though.3 -
I don’t see why he should be sacked. Certainly for this. Best thing is to say nothing for the govt. they’ve just encouraged more comment and handled it poorly. He’s hardly going to stop.kle4 said:I find it impossible to really get exercised by arguments about Lineker. As an employee of the BBC standards generally are that they should avoid overt political comments, and I don't think that is unreasonable, but it's clear he doesn't want to do that and to date they have had no interest in making him avoid it.
I like him as a presenter, so if they sacked him over it that'd be a shame, but not actually unfair either, since if you don't want to be constrained by BBC policy you don't have to work for it.
Conversely, sacking him won't shut him up so the goverment won't have achieved anything other than pissing off people who may like their policies but don't see the big deal if the football guy mouths off on twitter - most celebrities reveal themsevels to be at best ordinary and at worst pretty dumb when they opine on issues outside their area of expertise.
So they all might as well just retain the status quo, with a 'he shouldn't say that if he's working for the BBC' wrist slap, then he does it again and there's outrage, then repeat.1 -
So if you want to be an actual slave, you need to be British?BartholomewRoberts said:I've just seen this, is this genuine or fake?
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
British slaves for British slave owners.6 -
Speaking for myself I've currently downgraded my own expectations from 'competent government' to simply 'not disastrous government'. Seems more achievable.DavidL said:
I am going to stick my neck out here and say that we have seen peak SNP. They have had an excellent run over the last 10 years or so with 2 very strong leaders but the wheels are coming off and the replacements don't look up to it.kle4 said:
Never worth the risk (notwithstanding that the request for one should have been granted on a democratic basis).DavidL said:
It's almost tempting to agree the referendum after all...but not quite.TheScreamingEagles said:Big shift.
I'm always a pessimist on these matters, so I'm just waiting for the number to surge back up once the SNP finish their internal squabble and reassert discipline, reassuring the wider Yes movement.
None of which suggests that Scotland is likely to be competently governed any time soon.4 -
Even Corbyn would stop short of calling the free market economy a modern slavery system.rcs1000 said:
So if you want to be an actual slave, you need to be British?BartholomewRoberts said:I've just seen this, is this genuine or fake?
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
British slaves for British slave owners.0 -
On Nordstream
https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2023-03/nordstream-2-ukraine-anschlag
Specifically, according to information from ARD-Hauptstadtstudio,Kontraste, SWR and ZEIT, the investigators have succeeded in identifying the boat that was allegedly used for the secret operation. It is said to be a yacht that was rented by a company based in Poland, which apparently belongs to two Ukrainians. According to the investigation, the secret operation at sea is said to have been carried out by a team of six people. It is said to have been five men and one woman. According to this, the group consisted of a captain, two divers, two diving assistants and a doctor
:
The yacht was subsequently returned to the owner in uncleaned condition. According to the research, the investigators were able to detect traces of explosives on the table in the cabin.
The Russian Liberal Democrat party waves in the distancekle4 said:I would love it if the Moderate Party was actually a far right/left extremist group.
0 -
I thought it was about responsibility, getting paid more.Pagan2 said:
If there was most managers would earn less than their underlingsrcs1000 said:
I'm not sure there's ever been much correlation between the difficulty of a job and its pay.turbotubbs said:
That’s a ridiculous argument. How difficult is it to present MOTD vs hip surgery? I’d argue there are many, many people who could do the former, far fewer the latter.dixiedean said:
And I don't disagree.turbotubbs said:
Why does the BBC need to have what they consider to be top talent? Are they competing for viewers to purchase their product? NO! Its already a guaranteed income. If a lesser known presenter presented MOTD - say Alex Scott, for a tenth of Lineker's salary, what would be the consequence on BBC income? Nothing, zero, nada. And they would have more money for other stuff. BBC act like they are competing with Sky, ITV, Amazon, Netflix, yet in reality they aren't - the income will always be there.dixiedean said:
Why do NHS hospitals feel the need to compete with private sector for qualified doctors? Why pay for "top" talent?turbotubbs said:
The point is I choose to buy Sky, I choose to buy Netflix, I choose to buy Amazon. I have NO choice in the licence fee. None. Why does the BBC feel it has to compete against other channels? Why pay for top 'talent'? Its got a guaranteed income.Daveyboy1961 said:
Ridiculous statement. When you buy a service, the money ceases to be yours. It would be like me telling tesco which suppliers to spend MY money on.turbotubbs said:
Its not the BBC's money ultimately. We all pay the licence fee.Carnyx said:
Exactly - so he is obviously worth the money.turbotubbs said:
What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
Any price is what two people agree it is.
If it become a subscription that I could choose then I would have no beef with the employment of Lineker (other than that I think he is not worth the money). I would be choosing to subscribe. Right now I cannot opt out and legally watch other channels.
Why isn't someone off Universal Credit doing heart operations?
Why aren't State school teachers all on minimum wage?
Nobody chooses to buy them after all. They have a guaranteed income.
I don't see why people find this a hard concept.
For Lineker, getting a whopping salary (hang on, thought he wasn't an employee, so salary isn't correct...) is an example of market forces - I totally accept that. But the BBC doesn't need to pay for him.
But I don't see why you can't see that the very same argument applies to every Public Sector role.
You want you new hip done by a top surgeon or an ex-con on a three week work experience trial?0 -
You can see why this bill is the shitiest bill ever proposed.BartholomewRoberts said:
Sickening. 🤮TheScreamingEagles said:
Posted last night and it is genuine.BartholomewRoberts said:I've just seen this, is this genuine or fake?
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1633158789103747072
I'd already lost my respect for Sunak, this makes it sink even lower though.1 -
I personally had no idea that so many people were coming to the UK because they wanted to be slaves.williamglenn said:
Even Corbyn would stop short of calling the free market economy a modern slavery system.rcs1000 said:
So if you want to be an actual slave, you need to be British?BartholomewRoberts said:I've just seen this, is this genuine or fake?
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
British slaves for British slave owners.1 -
Not just Sunak though, its the majority of the party, at least at the end that makes the decisions. Cynical punching down to win votes is fine with them and indeed they put more effort into that than fixing the real problems.BartholomewRoberts said:
Sickening. 🤮TheScreamingEagles said:
Posted last night and it is genuine.BartholomewRoberts said:I've just seen this, is this genuine or fake?
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1633158789103747072
I'd already lost my respect for Sunak, this makes it sink even lower though.3 -
Nah, it's all about ruthless delegation.Andy_JS said:
I thought it was about responsibility, getting paid more.Pagan2 said:
If there was most managers would earn less than their underlingsrcs1000 said:
I'm not sure there's ever been much correlation between the difficulty of a job and its pay.turbotubbs said:
That’s a ridiculous argument. How difficult is it to present MOTD vs hip surgery? I’d argue there are many, many people who could do the former, far fewer the latter.dixiedean said:
And I don't disagree.turbotubbs said:
Why does the BBC need to have what they consider to be top talent? Are they competing for viewers to purchase their product? NO! Its already a guaranteed income. If a lesser known presenter presented MOTD - say Alex Scott, for a tenth of Lineker's salary, what would be the consequence on BBC income? Nothing, zero, nada. And they would have more money for other stuff. BBC act like they are competing with Sky, ITV, Amazon, Netflix, yet in reality they aren't - the income will always be there.dixiedean said:
Why do NHS hospitals feel the need to compete with private sector for qualified doctors? Why pay for "top" talent?turbotubbs said:
The point is I choose to buy Sky, I choose to buy Netflix, I choose to buy Amazon. I have NO choice in the licence fee. None. Why does the BBC feel it has to compete against other channels? Why pay for top 'talent'? Its got a guaranteed income.Daveyboy1961 said:
Ridiculous statement. When you buy a service, the money ceases to be yours. It would be like me telling tesco which suppliers to spend MY money on.turbotubbs said:
Its not the BBC's money ultimately. We all pay the licence fee.Carnyx said:
Exactly - so he is obviously worth the money.turbotubbs said:
What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
Any price is what two people agree it is.
If it become a subscription that I could choose then I would have no beef with the employment of Lineker (other than that I think he is not worth the money). I would be choosing to subscribe. Right now I cannot opt out and legally watch other channels.
Why isn't someone off Universal Credit doing heart operations?
Why aren't State school teachers all on minimum wage?
Nobody chooses to buy them after all. They have a guaranteed income.
I don't see why people find this a hard concept.
For Lineker, getting a whopping salary (hang on, thought he wasn't an employee, so salary isn't correct...) is an example of market forces - I totally accept that. But the BBC doesn't need to pay for him.
But I don't see why you can't see that the very same argument applies to every Public Sector role.
You want you new hip done by a top surgeon or an ex-con on a three week work experience trial?0 -
Yes, he's getting far too much attention. Let him say what he likes, but don't give him so much publicity.HYUFD said:I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating0 -
Impossible, Britons never ever shall be slaves, so I hear.rcs1000 said:
So if you want to be an actual slave, you need to be British?BartholomewRoberts said:I've just seen this, is this genuine or fake?
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
British slaves for British slave owners.1 -
Yes but we can enslave non-britons now, as long as they are illegal arrivals.kle4 said:
Impossible, Britons never ever shall be slaves, so I hear.rcs1000 said:
So if you want to be an actual slave, you need to be British?BartholomewRoberts said:I've just seen this, is this genuine or fake?
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
British slaves for British slave owners.0 -
Where's @Leon when you need him?Malmesbury said:On Nordstream
https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2023-03/nordstream-2-ukraine-anschlag
Specifically, according to information from ARD-Hauptstadtstudio,Kontraste, SWR and ZEIT, the investigators have succeeded in identifying the boat that was allegedly used for the secret operation. It is said to be a yacht that was rented by a company based in Poland, which apparently belongs to two Ukrainians. According to the investigation, the secret operation at sea is said to have been carried out by a team of six people. It is said to have been five men and one woman. According to this, the group consisted of a captain, two divers, two diving assistants and a doctor
:
The yacht was subsequently returned to the owner in uncleaned condition. According to the research, the investigators were able to detect traces of explosives on the table in the cabin.
The Russian Liberal Democrat party waves in the distancekle4 said:I would love it if the Moderate Party was actually a far right/left extremist group.
0 -
To be fair his dad was a market trader, he is now a multi millionaire, he has seen both sides of lifeJosiasJessop said:Gary Linekar...
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.0 -
In my experience there have been a few managers that have actually raised team productivity and far too many who have actually mistaken their role and lowered it by insisting on useless meetings, reports and meaningless KPI measurementsAndy_JS said:
I thought it was about responsibility, getting paid more.Pagan2 said:
If there was most managers would earn less than their underlingsrcs1000 said:
I'm not sure there's ever been much correlation between the difficulty of a job and its pay.turbotubbs said:
That’s a ridiculous argument. How difficult is it to present MOTD vs hip surgery? I’d argue there are many, many people who could do the former, far fewer the latter.dixiedean said:
And I don't disagree.turbotubbs said:
Why does the BBC need to have what they consider to be top talent? Are they competing for viewers to purchase their product? NO! Its already a guaranteed income. If a lesser known presenter presented MOTD - say Alex Scott, for a tenth of Lineker's salary, what would be the consequence on BBC income? Nothing, zero, nada. And they would have more money for other stuff. BBC act like they are competing with Sky, ITV, Amazon, Netflix, yet in reality they aren't - the income will always be there.dixiedean said:
Why do NHS hospitals feel the need to compete with private sector for qualified doctors? Why pay for "top" talent?turbotubbs said:
The point is I choose to buy Sky, I choose to buy Netflix, I choose to buy Amazon. I have NO choice in the licence fee. None. Why does the BBC feel it has to compete against other channels? Why pay for top 'talent'? Its got a guaranteed income.Daveyboy1961 said:
Ridiculous statement. When you buy a service, the money ceases to be yours. It would be like me telling tesco which suppliers to spend MY money on.turbotubbs said:
Its not the BBC's money ultimately. We all pay the licence fee.Carnyx said:
Exactly - so he is obviously worth the money.turbotubbs said:
What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
Any price is what two people agree it is.
If it become a subscription that I could choose then I would have no beef with the employment of Lineker (other than that I think he is not worth the money). I would be choosing to subscribe. Right now I cannot opt out and legally watch other channels.
Why isn't someone off Universal Credit doing heart operations?
Why aren't State school teachers all on minimum wage?
Nobody chooses to buy them after all. They have a guaranteed income.
I don't see why people find this a hard concept.
For Lineker, getting a whopping salary (hang on, thought he wasn't an employee, so salary isn't correct...) is an example of market forces - I totally accept that. But the BBC doesn't need to pay for him.
But I don't see why you can't see that the very same argument applies to every Public Sector role.
You want you new hip done by a top surgeon or an ex-con on a three week work experience trial?0 -
No we can't. They are now denied access to the modern slavery system.Foxy said:
Yes but we can enslave non-britons now, as long asthey are illegal arrivals.kle4 said:
Impossible, Britons never ever shall be slaves, so I hear.rcs1000 said:
So if you want to be an actual slave, you need to be British?BartholomewRoberts said:I've just seen this, is this genuine or fake?
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
British slaves for British slave owners.
3 -
Perhaps if we adopt the full EU system - with the Libyan auction blocks?rcs1000 said:
I personally had no idea that so many people were coming to the UK because they wanted to be slaves.williamglenn said:
Even Corbyn would stop short of calling the free market economy a modern slavery system.rcs1000 said:
So if you want to be an actual slave, you need to be British?BartholomewRoberts said:I've just seen this, is this genuine or fake?
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
British slaves for British slave owners.2 -
Well the cabinet have an established track record of illegality now - so can we just use flighttracker and collect them at Heathrow sometime?Foxy said:
Yes but we can enslave non-britons now, as long asthey are illegal arrivals.kle4 said:
Impossible, Britons never ever shall be slaves, so I hear.rcs1000 said:
So if you want to be an actual slave, you need to be British?BartholomewRoberts said:I've just seen this, is this genuine or fake?
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
British slaves for British slave owners.0 -
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.JosiasJessop said:Gary Linekar...
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.0 -
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.turbotubbs said:
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.Carnyx said:
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?BartholomewRoberts said:
No, they didn't.Carnyx said:
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?BartholomewRoberts said:
Market forces don't apply to his salary.Carnyx said:
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.BartholomewRoberts said:
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.0 -
Well done PB. You caught up on the Nordstream story about 24 hours after the Swedish-speaking world.0
-
I think it just means they can't get issued with a National Insurance number.rcs1000 said:
No we can't. They are now denied access to the modern slavery system.Foxy said:
Yes but we can enslave non-britons now, as long asthey are illegal arrivals.kle4 said:
Impossible, Britons never ever shall be slaves, so I hear.rcs1000 said:
So if you want to be an actual slave, you need to be British?BartholomewRoberts said:I've just seen this, is this genuine or fake?
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
British slaves for British slave owners.0 -
Sunak s high point will be the NI protocol bill . He’s now descending into a thin Bozo with the peddling of hate and division.
To have children of immigrants peddling this hate is despicable.0 -
Er… transgenderism doing well…0 -
Gary lives in Barnes. Good bloke.kle4 said:
One doesn't need to be of the people to speak for the people.JosiasJessop said:Gary Linekar...
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Not that I think he actually is on this issue. The public repeatedly demonstrate that are a lot tougher on these issues than any centrist or attempted centrist or liberal.1 -
It's a presentational faux-pas. The tweet says you won't benefit from the UK's modern slavery protections if you come in illegally, whereas you will be if you come in legally.kle4 said:
It's genuineBartholomewRoberts said:I've just seen this, is this genuine or fake?
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1633158789103747072?cxt=HHwWgICw5YHRkqotAAAA
If they claim the problem is abuse of UK systems by claiming to be a modern slave that should have been the graphic, that you won't get to abuse it.
It's probably academic since, if the bill works as drafted, you'll simply be securely held and then deported so the modern slavery stuff is academic.0 -
Actual I posted the story over 24 hours ago.StuartDickson said:Well done PB. You caught up on the Nordstream story about 24 hours after the Swedish-speaking world.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4327352#Comment_43273524 -
Border control is not synonymous with hate.nico679 said:Sunak s high point will be the NI protocol bill . He’s now descending into a thin Bozo with the peddling of hate and division.
To have children of immigrants peddling this hate is despicable.1 -
That makes no sense.williamglenn said:
I think it just means they can't get issued with a National Insurance number.rcs1000 said:
No we can't. They are now denied access to the modern slavery system.Foxy said:
Yes but we can enslave non-britons now, as long asthey are illegal arrivals.kle4 said:
Impossible, Britons never ever shall be slaves, so I hear.rcs1000 said:
So if you want to be an actual slave, you need to be British?BartholomewRoberts said:I've just seen this, is this genuine or fake?
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
British slaves for British slave owners.
If it said "Denied access to the labour market" it would be fine.
But it says modern slavery system.
That compares to, you know, traditional work where people get paid. Slavery, as I understand it, involves ownership of human beings, and getting them to work (and other things) in return for no money at all.1 -
That we might get a Sir Stanley Johnson instead of a Sir Gary Lineker tells you all you need to know.
https://twitter.com/dannywallace/status/16335057513972777100 -
Nope. That’s not the right story.TheScreamingEagles said:
Actual I posted the story over 24 hours ago.StuartDickson said:Well done PB. You caught up on the Nordstream story about 24 hours after the Swedish-speaking world.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4327352#Comment_43273520 -
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.Carnyx said:
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.turbotubbs said:
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.Carnyx said:
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?BartholomewRoberts said:
No, they didn't.Carnyx said:
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?BartholomewRoberts said:
Market forces don't apply to his salary.Carnyx said:
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.BartholomewRoberts said:
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.0 -
Wasn't the assumption at the time that only a major state could have been behind it?Malmesbury said:On Nordstream
https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2023-03/nordstream-2-ukraine-anschlag
Specifically, according to information from ARD-Hauptstadtstudio,Kontraste, SWR and ZEIT, the investigators have succeeded in identifying the boat that was allegedly used for the secret operation. It is said to be a yacht that was rented by a company based in Poland, which apparently belongs to two Ukrainians. According to the investigation, the secret operation at sea is said to have been carried out by a team of six people. It is said to have been five men and one woman. According to this, the group consisted of a captain, two divers, two diving assistants and a doctor
:
The yacht was subsequently returned to the owner in uncleaned condition. According to the research, the investigators were able to detect traces of explosives on the table in the cabin.
The Russian Liberal Democrat party waves in the distancekle4 said:I would love it if the Moderate Party was actually a far right/left extremist group.
0 -
So Barnesgary then?Barnesian said:
Gary lives in Barnes. Good bloke.kle4 said:
One doesn't need to be of the people to speak for the people.JosiasJessop said:Gary Linekar...
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Not that I think he actually is on this issue. The public repeatedly demonstrate that are a lot tougher on these issues than any centrist or attempted centrist or liberal.0 -
As an aside this is the complete opposite of the Swiss system that works so well: there is literally no incentive for an illegal immigrant to report an employer.Casino_Royale said:
It's a presentational faux-pas. The tweet says you won't benefit from the UK's modern slavery protections if you come in illegally, whereas you will be if you come in legally.kle4 said:
It's genuineBartholomewRoberts said:I've just seen this, is this genuine or fake?
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1633158789103747072?cxt=HHwWgICw5YHRkqotAAAA
If they claim the problem is abuse of UK systems by claiming to be a modern slave that should have been the graphic, that you won't get to abuse it.
It's probably academic since, if the bill works as drafted, you'll simply be securely held and then deported so the modern slavery stuff is academic.6 -
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.turbotubbs said:
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.Carnyx said:
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.turbotubbs said:
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.Carnyx said:
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?BartholomewRoberts said:
No, they didn't.Carnyx said:
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?BartholomewRoberts said:
Market forces don't apply to his salary.Carnyx said:
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.BartholomewRoberts said:
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.2 -
Here's a quandary. Should I now think more or less of Tucker Carlson?
https://twitter.com/DomMastrangelo1/status/1633479522438856711
New legal filings from Dominion's defamation lawsuit against Fox show top talent at the network fretting over Trump and his false claims of a stolen election.
“I hate him passionately," Tucker Carlson wrote of Trump just two days before the Jan. 6 riot.0 -
Yes, I have bought fruit from his family stall, though I think they have since given up the pitch. I have met a few of his relatives about the town. He is very highly respected here, and not just for his footballing past starting in the Leicester City youth team.HYUFD said:
To be fair his dad was a market trader, he is now a multi millionaire, he has seen both sides of lifeJosiasJessop said:Gary Linekar...
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Ultimately this is an issue of free speech. He is free to hold whatever opinions he likes off air, and we are free to listen or not as we choose.2 -
turbotubbs said:
So Barnesgary then?Barnesian said:
Gary lives in Barnes. Good bloke.kle4 said:
One doesn't need to be of the people to speak for the people.JosiasJessop said:Gary Linekar...
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Not that I think he actually is on this issue. The public repeatedly demonstrate that are a lot tougher on these issues than any centrist or attempted centrist or liberal.
0 -
No it’s not, but that’s the problem with this bill. It’s all playground stuff: stop the boats podiums, banner ads talking about denying access to Britain’s world leading modern slavery system, talk of invasions etc.williamglenn said:
Border control is not synonymous with hate.nico679 said:Sunak s high point will be the NI protocol bill . He’s now descending into a thin Bozo with the peddling of hate and division.
To have children of immigrants peddling this hate is despicable.
British politicians have this awful habit, shown throughout Brexit too, of speaking loudly and carrying a very small stick.5 -
But do people watch MOTD day for (a) the football or (b) the grinning, out of touch with the modern game presenter?rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.turbotubbs said:
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.Carnyx said:
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.turbotubbs said:
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.Carnyx said:
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?BartholomewRoberts said:
No, they didn't.Carnyx said:
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?BartholomewRoberts said:
Market forces don't apply to his salary.Carnyx said:
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.BartholomewRoberts said:
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.0 -
Easy enough to A/B test.turbotubbs said:
But do people watch MOTD day for (a) the football or (b) the grinning, out of touch with the modern game presenter?rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.turbotubbs said:
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.Carnyx said:
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.turbotubbs said:
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.Carnyx said:
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?BartholomewRoberts said:
No, they didn't.Carnyx said:
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?BartholomewRoberts said:
Market forces don't apply to his salary.Carnyx said:
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.BartholomewRoberts said:
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.0 -
I'm not moving the goalposts.Carnyx said:
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.turbotubbs said:
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.Carnyx said:
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?BartholomewRoberts said:
No, they didn't.Carnyx said:
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?BartholomewRoberts said:
Market forces don't apply to his salary.Carnyx said:
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.BartholomewRoberts said:
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
The recruitment market is not being entered into openly, as they're not using their own openly sourced revenue.
In an open market the free market value for hiring someone to dig a hole then fill it in again might be zero.
If the taxpayer pays a million to someone to dig a hole then fill it in again, then market forces don't apply, so that job can continue even if there is no value there.
If you want market forces to apply, then market forces need to be there. Since the BBC gets it revenue from the threat of imprisonment, not the market, then market forces are not there. Nor any other public sector role.0 -
Less. Because if he sincerely believed the stuff he pushed it'd be one thing, but he doesn't believe it and still actively chooses to do it.FrankBooth said:Here's a quandary. Should I now think more or less of Tucker Carlson?
https://twitter.com/DomMastrangelo1/status/1633479522438856711
New legal filings from Dominion's defamation lawsuit against Fox show top talent at the network fretting over Trump and his false claims of a stolen election.
“I hate him passionately," Tucker Carlson wrote of Trump just two days before the Jan. 6 riot.2 -
Bloofy twitter. Great, now that's ruined World's Strongest Man for me.TheScreamingEagles said:That we might get a Sir Stanley Johnson instead of a Sir Gary Lineker tells you all you need to know.
https://twitter.com/dannywallace/status/1633505751397277710
Do you remember the days when we could remain in happy ignorance of the political views of most famous people?1 -
I’m not sure Gary Lineker is the reason people watch Match of the day - I might be the only person and so completely wrong but people watch it to get a compressed highlights show with a bit of light analysis.rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.turbotubbs said:
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.Carnyx said:
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.turbotubbs said:
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.Carnyx said:
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?BartholomewRoberts said:
No, they didn't.Carnyx said:
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?BartholomewRoberts said:
Market forces don't apply to his salary.Carnyx said:
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.BartholomewRoberts said:
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
If anyone could be arsed I’m sure they could compare the viewing figures on Match of the Day on the occasions when he doesn’t host and it’s Mark Chapman for example. I imagine viewing figures for MOTD are driven more by which games happened and if they were all 0-0.4 -
Not really.TheScreamingEagles said:That we might get a Sir Stanley Johnson instead of a Sir Gary Lineker tells you all you need to know.
https://twitter.com/dannywallace/status/1633505751397277710
That's classic Twatter where those who agree with me should be showered with honours and those who do not should be locked in chains.0 -
Not specific to that example, but it shows us most of them are as uninformed, ignorant, and unoriginal as the rest of us. I don't want to think that, I want to think most successful people are exceptional in some way.Cookie said:
Bloofy twitter. Great, now that's ruined World's Strongest Man for me.TheScreamingEagles said:That we might get a Sir Stanley Johnson instead of a Sir Gary Lineker tells you all you need to know.
https://twitter.com/dannywallace/status/1633505751397277710
Do you remember the days when we could remain in happy ignorance of the political views of most famous people?1 -
Beyond that whoever is MOTD presenter has easy money to make elsewhere.boulay said:
I’m not sure Gary Lineker is the reason people watch Match of the day - I might be the only person and so completely wrong but people watch it to get a compressed highlights show with a bit of light analysis.rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.turbotubbs said:
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.Carnyx said:
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.turbotubbs said:
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.Carnyx said:
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?BartholomewRoberts said:
No, they didn't.Carnyx said:
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?BartholomewRoberts said:
Market forces don't apply to his salary.Carnyx said:
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.BartholomewRoberts said:
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
If anyone could be arsed I’m sure they could compare the viewing figures on Match of the Day on the occasions when he doesn’t host and it’s Mark Chapman for example. I imagine viewing figures for MOTD are driven more by which games happened and if they were all 0-0.
Give Frank Lampard (or any ex random footballer) the job and within a month or two BT and Sky will be offering him millions. So BBC can pay well below market rates for that gig if they sell it properly.0 -
I'm of the opinion that neither of them deserve a knighthood.Casino_Royale said:
Not really.TheScreamingEagles said:That we might get a Sir Stanley Johnson instead of a Sir Gary Lineker tells you all you need to know.
https://twitter.com/dannywallace/status/1633505751397277710
That's classic Twatter where those who agree with me should be showered with honours and those who do not should be locked in chains.0 -
This is just the old debate about the BBC. Should they plug the gaps left by the market by doing stuff commercial broadcasters wouldn't touch with a bargepole (minority sports, opera, religious programming... worthy but of very narrow interest) or provide a range from the popular to the high brow so everyone gets something in return for the licence fee, and they introduce the more high minded stuff like fluoride in the water supply?turbotubbs said:
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.Carnyx said:
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.turbotubbs said:
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.Carnyx said:
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?BartholomewRoberts said:
No, they didn't.Carnyx said:
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?BartholomewRoberts said:
Market forces don't apply to his salary.Carnyx said:
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.BartholomewRoberts said:
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
Personally, I think the former route is suicide, as most of those suggesting it know perfectly well.
Also worth noting that competition tends to drive up standards if you believe in the free market. So BBC providing an appealing product drives ITV and others towards the same.2 -
Just had a talking head on the BBC claiming that diving 150 feet is difficult and demanding.FrankBooth said:
Wasn't the assumption at the time that only a major state could have been behind it?Malmesbury said:On Nordstream
https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2023-03/nordstream-2-ukraine-anschlag
Specifically, according to information from ARD-Hauptstadtstudio,Kontraste, SWR and ZEIT, the investigators have succeeded in identifying the boat that was allegedly used for the secret operation. It is said to be a yacht that was rented by a company based in Poland, which apparently belongs to two Ukrainians. According to the investigation, the secret operation at sea is said to have been carried out by a team of six people. It is said to have been five men and one woman. According to this, the group consisted of a captain, two divers, two diving assistants and a doctor
:
The yacht was subsequently returned to the owner in uncleaned condition. According to the research, the investigators were able to detect traces of explosives on the table in the cabin.
The Russian Liberal Democrat party waves in the distancekle4 said:I would love it if the Moderate Party was actually a far right/left extremist group.
In one way it is, I suppose - but there are many, many thousands of people who can dive that depth and keep the kit ik the garage.
I did giggle at the suggestion that the yacht must have been modified with a crane to lower stuff to the seabed. There’s this thing called neutral buoyancy…0 -
If people chose whether to pay the licence fee or not voluntarily, based on whether they want to watch the BBC or not, that would be a market value then.rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.turbotubbs said:
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.Carnyx said:
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.turbotubbs said:
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.Carnyx said:
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?BartholomewRoberts said:
No, they didn't.Carnyx said:
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?BartholomewRoberts said:
Market forces don't apply to his salary.Carnyx said:
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.BartholomewRoberts said:
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
However since people can go to prison for not paying it, even if they don't watch the BBC, then it is not today. Any more than whatever MPs vote to pay themselves is a market value.
In order to be a market force, market forces actually need to apply. If you are operating in a vacuum whereby your revenue is decided by politics, not market forces, then no market forces don't apply - politics applies.0 -
Knighted footballers is a pretty short list, most of whom have done something more worthy beyond football than being a presenter. That said with comparison to other non footballing sporting knights he probably has a reasonable case.TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm of the opinion that neither of them deserve a knighthood.Casino_Royale said:
Not really.TheScreamingEagles said:That we might get a Sir Stanley Johnson instead of a Sir Gary Lineker tells you all you need to know.
https://twitter.com/dannywallace/status/1633505751397277710
That's classic Twatter where those who agree with me should be showered with honours and those who do not should be locked in chains.1 -
Some international matches have been televised by both ITV and BBC, so presumably there is actual data on whether Lineker is a net positive or not.boulay said:
I’m not sure Gary Lineker is the reason people watch Match of the day - I might be the only person and so completely wrong but people watch it to get a compressed highlights show with a bit of light analysis.rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.turbotubbs said:
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.Carnyx said:
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.turbotubbs said:
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.Carnyx said:
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?BartholomewRoberts said:
No, they didn't.Carnyx said:
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?BartholomewRoberts said:
Market forces don't apply to his salary.Carnyx said:
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.BartholomewRoberts said:
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
If anyone could be arsed I’m sure they could compare the viewing figures on Match of the Day on the occasions when he doesn’t host and it’s Mark Chapman for example. I imagine viewing figures for MOTD are driven more by which games happened and if they were all 0-0.0 -
Only because it never occurred to him.williamglenn said:
Even Corbyn would stop short of calling the free market economy a modern slavery system.rcs1000 said:
So if you want to be an actual slave, you need to be British?BartholomewRoberts said:I've just seen this, is this genuine or fake?
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
British slaves for British slave owners.0 -
The Saturday show gets much better ratings than the MOTD2 on Sunday without him.rcs1000 said:
Easy enough to A/B test.turbotubbs said:
But do people watch MOTD day for (a) the football or (b) the grinning, out of touch with the modern game presenter?rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.turbotubbs said:
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.Carnyx said:
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.turbotubbs said:
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.Carnyx said:
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?BartholomewRoberts said:
No, they didn't.Carnyx said:
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?BartholomewRoberts said:
Market forces don't apply to his salary.Carnyx said:
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.BartholomewRoberts said:
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.0 -
What about the extension of slavery to anyone born without a knighthood?TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm of the opinion that neither of them deserve a knighthood.Casino_Royale said:
Not really.TheScreamingEagles said:That we might get a Sir Stanley Johnson instead of a Sir Gary Lineker tells you all you need to know.
https://twitter.com/dannywallace/status/1633505751397277710
That's classic Twatter where those who agree with me should be showered with honours and those who do not should be locked in chains.0 -
I don’t think people choose which channel to watch dual broadcast matches on based on Lineker being the host - there are a number of analysts who have a following - people might prefer the Shearer and Micah Richards team to Roy Keane and Ian Wright on ITV, ITV has ad Breaks which people don’t necessarily like as it cuts into analysis time and of course there is the curse of ITV.rcs1000 said:
Some international matches have been televised by both ITV and BBC, so presumably there is actual data on whether Lineker is a net positive or not.boulay said:
I’m not sure Gary Lineker is the reason people watch Match of the day - I might be the only person and so completely wrong but people watch it to get a compressed highlights show with a bit of light analysis.rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.turbotubbs said:
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.Carnyx said:
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.turbotubbs said:
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.Carnyx said:
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?BartholomewRoberts said:
No, they didn't.Carnyx said:
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?BartholomewRoberts said:
Market forces don't apply to his salary.Carnyx said:
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.BartholomewRoberts said:
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
If anyone could be arsed I’m sure they could compare the viewing figures on Match of the Day on the occasions when he doesn’t host and it’s Mark Chapman for example. I imagine viewing figures for MOTD are driven more by which games happened and if they were all 0-0.
I really wouldn’t switch to ITV for matches if it was Gabby Logan hosting BBC instead of Lineker or if Lineker switched to host ITV.0 -
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.JosiasJessop said:Gary Linekar...
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
0 -
Perhaps one of the Tory strategy documents suggesting to take Britain back to the 1950s had a typo and they are now aiming for the 950s?Casino_Royale said:
What about the extension of slavery to anyone born without a knighthood?TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm of the opinion that neither of them deserve a knighthood.Casino_Royale said:
Not really.TheScreamingEagles said:That we might get a Sir Stanley Johnson instead of a Sir Gary Lineker tells you all you need to know.
https://twitter.com/dannywallace/status/1633505751397277710
That's classic Twatter where those who agree with me should be showered with honours and those who do not should be locked in chains.0 -
A sound policy for a happier Britain.Casino_Royale said:
What about the extension of slavery to anyone born without a knighthood?TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm of the opinion that neither of them deserve a knighthood.Casino_Royale said:
Not really.TheScreamingEagles said:That we might get a Sir Stanley Johnson instead of a Sir Gary Lineker tells you all you need to know.
https://twitter.com/dannywallace/status/1633505751397277710
That's classic Twatter where those who agree with me should be showered with honours and those who do not should be locked in chains.0 -
Whatever happened to that PB comments Harry-Meghan scoop?0
-
IF your para 1 is correct, then rather similar trajectory to the Parti Quebecois a (dare I say?) a generation (or so) ago.,DavidL said:
I am going to stick my neck out here and say that we have seen peak SNP. They have had an excellent run over the last 10 years or so with 2 very strong leaders but the wheels are coming off and the replacements don't look up to it.kle4 said:
Never worth the risk (notwithstanding that the request for one should have been granted on a democratic basis).DavidL said:
It's almost tempting to agree the referendum after all...but not quite.TheScreamingEagles said:Big shift.
I'm always a pessimist on these matters, so I'm just waiting for the number to surge back up once the SNP finish their internal squabble and reassert discipline, reassuring the wider Yes movement.
None of which suggests that Scotland is likely to be competently governed any time soon.
Perhaps worth noting, that today the Province of Quebec is governed by a center-right "nationalist" party, Coalition Avenir Québec, with the "separatist" PQ reduced to a wretched rump, increasingly replaced on center-left by Québec solidaire, which is somewhat vague on where it falls on the "nationalist" / "separatist" divide but tends to soft-peddle the later in favor of the former (and is also less ethnically focused than PQ).
FYI (also BTW) "nationalist" in Quebec context generally means seeking means full(est) autonomy for la belle province WITHIN Canada, whereas "separatist" means aiming for full independence OUTSIDE Canada.
Will be interesting to see if, in future, there might be scope for a center-right Scottish party, focused on autonomy rather than independence?1 -
1750s would do ...noneoftheabove said:
Perhaps one of the Tory strategy documents suggesting to take Britain back to the 1950s had a typo and they are now aiming for the 950s?Casino_Royale said:
What about the extension of slavery to anyone born without a knighthood?TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm of the opinion that neither of them deserve a knighthood.Casino_Royale said:
Not really.TheScreamingEagles said:That we might get a Sir Stanley Johnson instead of a Sir Gary Lineker tells you all you need to know.
https://twitter.com/dannywallace/status/1633505751397277710
That's classic Twatter where those who agree with me should be showered with honours and those who do not should be locked in chains.0 -
You'd have to find a way to separate him from the adverts factor.rcs1000 said:
Some international matches have been televised by both ITV and BBC, so presumably there is actual data on whether Lineker is a net positive or not.boulay said:
I’m not sure Gary Lineker is the reason people watch Match of the day - I might be the only person and so completely wrong but people watch it to get a compressed highlights show with a bit of light analysis.rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.turbotubbs said:
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.Carnyx said:
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.turbotubbs said:
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.Carnyx said:
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?BartholomewRoberts said:
No, they didn't.Carnyx said:
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?BartholomewRoberts said:
Market forces don't apply to his salary.Carnyx said:
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.BartholomewRoberts said:
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
If anyone could be arsed I’m sure they could compare the viewing figures on Match of the Day on the occasions when he doesn’t host and it’s Mark Chapman for example. I imagine viewing figures for MOTD are driven more by which games happened and if they were all 0-0.0 -
Yes, and at age 11 (1971) he was seeing a different side of life. In 1978, he became a professional footballer. He retired from international football in 1992, 31 years ago. Since he was 11, he has lived a very different life from that which he pretends to speak for.HYUFD said:
To be fair his dad was a market trader, he is now a multi millionaire, he has seen both sides of lifeJosiasJessop said:Gary Linekar...
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
The majority of his life, he's been a pundit. He's been in the media's life.0 -
It may be a Coke vs Pepsi arms race - they spent billions on advertising and didn’t shift the market. But what would have happened if either of them didn’t bother?Driver said:
You'd have to find a way to separate him from the adverts factor.rcs1000 said:
Some international matches have been televised by both ITV and BBC, so presumably there is actual data on whether Lineker is a net positive or not.boulay said:
I’m not sure Gary Lineker is the reason people watch Match of the day - I might be the only person and so completely wrong but people watch it to get a compressed highlights show with a bit of light analysis.rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.turbotubbs said:
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.Carnyx said:
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.turbotubbs said:
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.Carnyx said:
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?BartholomewRoberts said:
No, they didn't.Carnyx said:
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?BartholomewRoberts said:
Market forces don't apply to his salary.Carnyx said:
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.BartholomewRoberts said:
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
If anyone could be arsed I’m sure they could compare the viewing figures on Match of the Day on the occasions when he doesn’t host and it’s Mark Chapman for example. I imagine viewing figures for MOTD are driven more by which games happened and if they were all 0-0.1 -
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.JosiasJessop said:
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.JosiasJessop said:Gary Linekar...
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.0 -
Josh
@JMagosh
Favourability of the Labour Party among people voted SNP in 2019:
Favourable: 38% (+10)
Unfavourable: 33% (-5)
Net: +5 (up 15)
Changes with Redfield's November 2022 poll.
This would be a *very* dangerous time for the SNP to irritate its progressive voters.0 -
Jimmy Saville was likeable for decades. People didn't want Saville gone for doing a shit job.kle4 said:
I've always found him inherently likeable, as a presenter. It doesn't feel like a situation where for years people have wanted him gone for doing a shit job.JosiasJessop said:
"smooth-talking"?Northern_Al said:
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks.HYUFD said:I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
(He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
I'm not into football, so I don't see him often. But when I do see him, he has the charisma and presence of a wet lettuce. Perhaps that is unfair, because of the first clause.
I'm obviously not saying Lineker is personally like Saville. Just that 'likeability' in the public eye does not equate to 'right' when it comes to areas outside their immediate expertise (pop music and football, respectively).0 -
We find out months from now whether it was true or not?EPG said:Whatever happened to that PB comments Harry-Meghan scoop?
0 -
Kate Forbes clearly isn't a team player. She'll find it difficult to keep her government together if she does win.TheScreamingEagles said:SNP Cabinet Minister Shona Robison accuses Kate Forbes of "trashing" the SG and "undermining" Nicola Sturgeon. Also:
- demanded "full transparency" on Forbes' views on abortion
- said she would have to think long and hard about serving in her Gov
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/16334852355003269130 -
What a facile comment.JosiasJessop said:
Jimmy Saville was likeable for decades. People didn't want Saville gone for doing a shit job.kle4 said:
I've always found him inherently likeable, as a presenter. It doesn't feel like a situation where for years people have wanted him gone for doing a shit job.JosiasJessop said:
"smooth-talking"?Northern_Al said:
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks.HYUFD said:I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
(He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
I'm not into football, so I don't see him often. But when I do see him, he has the charisma and presence of a wet lettuce. Perhaps that is unfair, because of the first clause.
I'm obviously not saying Lineker is personally like Saville. Just that 'likeability' in the public eye does not equate to 'right' when it comes to areas outside their immediate expertise (pop music and football, respectively).
There is no parallel whatsoever between someone holding a view I disagree with and them being a prolific sexual offender. Not even a loose one.
Your point isn't a point at all, other than that it allows you to put Lineker and Savile in the same sentence, which you see as a victory for reasons unknown.3 -
.
Unsurprising, the Sunday show has fewer fixtures in it and will primarily feature games that have already been televised, whereas the Saturday show will have many more matches including more that weren't shown due to kicking off at 3pm.Foxy said:
The Saturday show gets much better ratings than the MOTD2 on Sunday without him.rcs1000 said:
Easy enough to A/B test.turbotubbs said:
But do people watch MOTD day for (a) the football or (b) the grinning, out of touch with the modern game presenter?rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.turbotubbs said:
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.Carnyx said:
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.turbotubbs said:
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.Carnyx said:
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?BartholomewRoberts said:
No, they didn't.Carnyx said:
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?BartholomewRoberts said:
Market forces don't apply to his salary.Carnyx said:
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.BartholomewRoberts said:
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.0 -
???SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.JosiasJessop said:
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.JosiasJessop said:Gary Linekar...
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)0 -
Still waiting on the Finland story, let alone a Harry/Megan divorce.3
-
I didnt say it did. But since you offered your own opinion about his presence and charisma, I offered a countering view.JosiasJessop said:
Jimmy Saville was likeable for decades. People didn't want Saville gone for doing a shit job.kle4 said:
I've always found him inherently likeable, as a presenter. It doesn't feel like a situation where for years people have wanted him gone for doing a shit job.JosiasJessop said:
"smooth-talking"?Northern_Al said:
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks.HYUFD said:I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
(He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
I'm not into football, so I don't see him often. But when I do see him, he has the charisma and presence of a wet lettuce. Perhaps that is unfair, because of the first clause.
I'm obviously not saying Lineker is personally like Saville. Just that 'likeability' in the public eye does not equate to 'right' when it comes to areas outside their immediate expertise (pop music and football, respectively).0 -
Didn't he put his money where his mouth was over refugees? Filling his gaf with Afghans or some such.JosiasJessop said:
Yes, and at age 11 (1971) he was seeing a different side of life. In 1978, he became a professional footballer. He retired from international football in 1992, 31 years ago. Since he was 11, he has lived a very different life from that which he pretends to speak for.HYUFD said:
To be fair his dad was a market trader, he is now a multi millionaire, he has seen both sides of lifeJosiasJessop said:Gary Linekar...
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
The majority of his life, he's been a pundit. He's been in the media's life.
I would be surprised if Richard Sharp, Tim Davie and Robbie Gibb don't sack his sorry ****. They own the BBC on behalf of Boris Johnson, you know.0 -
Good old Sir Talbot Buxomley.ydoethur said:
A sound policy for a happier Britain.Casino_Royale said:
What about the extension of slavery to anyone born without a knighthood?TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm of the opinion that neither of them deserve a knighthood.Casino_Royale said:
Not really.TheScreamingEagles said:That we might get a Sir Stanley Johnson instead of a Sir Gary Lineker tells you all you need to know.
https://twitter.com/dannywallace/status/1633505751397277710
That's classic Twatter where those who agree with me should be showered with honours and those who do not should be locked in chains.0 -
KLE's comment was about 'likeability' and people not 'wanting him gone'.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
What a facile comment.JosiasJessop said:
Jimmy Saville was likeable for decades. People didn't want Saville gone for doing a shit job.kle4 said:
I've always found him inherently likeable, as a presenter. It doesn't feel like a situation where for years people have wanted him gone for doing a shit job.JosiasJessop said:
"smooth-talking"?Northern_Al said:
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks.HYUFD said:I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
(He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
I'm not into football, so I don't see him often. But when I do see him, he has the charisma and presence of a wet lettuce. Perhaps that is unfair, because of the first clause.
I'm obviously not saying Lineker is personally like Saville. Just that 'likeability' in the public eye does not equate to 'right' when it comes to areas outside their immediate expertise (pop music and football, respectively).
There is no parallel whatsoever between someone holding a view I disagree with and them being a prolific sexual offender. Not even a loose one.
Your point isn't a point at all, other than that it allows you to put Lineker and Savile in the same sentence, which you see as a victory for reasons unknown.
This story is about him speaking *way* outside his area of 'expertise'.
I don't see it as a 'victory'; I'm just commenting that (current) public likeability does not make someone correct, morally or factually.0 -
Quebec, even as presently constituted in the Canadian federation, has far more power than Scotland or Wales.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
IF your para 1 is correct, then rather similar trajectory to the Parti Quebecois a (dare I say?) a generation (or so) ago.,DavidL said:
I am going to stick my neck out here and say that we have seen peak SNP. They have had an excellent run over the last 10 years or so with 2 very strong leaders but the wheels are coming off and the replacements don't look up to it.kle4 said:
Never worth the risk (notwithstanding that the request for one should have been granted on a democratic basis).DavidL said:
It's almost tempting to agree the referendum after all...but not quite.TheScreamingEagles said:Big shift.
I'm always a pessimist on these matters, so I'm just waiting for the number to surge back up once the SNP finish their internal squabble and reassert discipline, reassuring the wider Yes movement.
None of which suggests that Scotland is likely to be competently governed any time soon.
Perhaps worth noting, that today the Province of Quebec is governed by a center-right "nationalist" party, Coalition Avenir Québec, with the "separatist" PQ reduced to a wretched rump, increasingly replaced on center-left by Québec solidaire, which is somewhat vague on where it falls on the "nationalist" / "separatist" divide but tends to soft-peddle the later in favor of the former (and is also less ethnically focused than PQ).
FYI (also BTW) "nationalist" in Quebec context generally means seeking means full(est) autonomy for la belle province WITHIN Canada, whereas "separatist" means aiming for full independence OUTSIDE Canada.
Will be interesting to see if, in future, there might be scope for a center-right Scottish party, focused on autonomy rather than independence?
If Scotland or Wales were offered the powers Quebec has, they might feel more confident about a future in the UK.0 -
Except that in a Scottish context the Labour Party is well to the right of the SNP. Which makes it so interesting a situation, admittedly.RandallFlagg said:Josh
@JMagosh
Favourability of the Labour Party among people voted SNP in 2019:
Favourable: 38% (+10)
Unfavourable: 33% (-5)
Net: +5 (up 15)
Changes with Redfield's November 2022 poll.
This would be a *very* dangerous time for the SNP to irritate its progressive voters.
0 -
Did he? Linky please.Mexicanpete said:
Didn't he put his money where his mouth was over refugees? Filling his gaf with Afghans or some such.JosiasJessop said:
Yes, and at age 11 (1971) he was seeing a different side of life. In 1978, he became a professional footballer. He retired from international football in 1992, 31 years ago. Since he was 11, he has lived a very different life from that which he pretends to speak for.HYUFD said:
To be fair his dad was a market trader, he is now a multi millionaire, he has seen both sides of lifeJosiasJessop said:Gary Linekar...
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
The majority of his life, he's been a pundit. He's been in the media's life.
I would be surprised if Richard Sharp, Tim Davie and Robbie Gibb don't sack his sorry ****. They own the BBC on behalf of Boris Johnson, you know.0 -
I completely dislike Kate Forbes and disagree with her politics, and hope she loses the race, but why isn't she a team player from that comment?FF43 said:
Kate Forbes clearly isn't a team player. She'll find it difficult to keep her government together if she does win.TheScreamingEagles said:SNP Cabinet Minister Shona Robison accuses Kate Forbes of "trashing" the SG and "undermining" Nicola Sturgeon. Also:
- demanded "full transparency" on Forbes' views on abortion
- said she would have to think long and hard about serving in her Gov
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1633485235500326913
Could it not equally be that Shona Robison isn't a team player?0 -
I read a story that they went out in LA the other day.turbotubbs said:Still waiting on the Finland story, let alone a Harry/Megan divorce.
But on the other hand, it did say it was their first public appearance together for months, so maybe it was for show.
0 -
Look at Mr Rashford. He's a top footie player. Yet he hasn't forgotten his past life. And the Tories hate his guts for it.Mexicanpete said:
Didn't he put his money where his mouth was over refugees? Filling his gaf with Afghans or some such.JosiasJessop said:
Yes, and at age 11 (1971) he was seeing a different side of life. In 1978, he became a professional footballer. He retired from international football in 1992, 31 years ago. Since he was 11, he has lived a very different life from that which he pretends to speak for.HYUFD said:
To be fair his dad was a market trader, he is now a multi millionaire, he has seen both sides of lifeJosiasJessop said:Gary Linekar...
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
The majority of his life, he's been a pundit. He's been in the media's life.
I would be surprised if Richard Sharp, Tim Davie and Robbie Gibb don't sack his sorry ****. They own the BBC on behalf of Boris Johnson, you know.2 -
That's an excellent point.Driver said:
You'd have to find a way to separate him from the adverts factor.rcs1000 said:
Some international matches have been televised by both ITV and BBC, so presumably there is actual data on whether Lineker is a net positive or not.boulay said:
I’m not sure Gary Lineker is the reason people watch Match of the day - I might be the only person and so completely wrong but people watch it to get a compressed highlights show with a bit of light analysis.rcs1000 said:
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.turbotubbs said:
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.Carnyx said:
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.turbotubbs said:
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.Carnyx said:
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?BartholomewRoberts said:
No, they didn't.Carnyx said:
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?BartholomewRoberts said:
Market forces don't apply to his salary.Carnyx said:
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.BartholomewRoberts said:
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.Carnyx said:
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.turbotubbs said:
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.Carnyx said:
What rules?Driver said:
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.noneoftheabove said:He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
If anyone could be arsed I’m sure they could compare the viewing figures on Match of the Day on the occasions when he doesn’t host and it’s Mark Chapman for example. I imagine viewing figures for MOTD are driven more by which games happened and if they were all 0-0.0 -
On topic, LOL at someone who’s been a massive fan of cancel culture over free speech, getting a taste of his own medicine.1
-
The comments from senior figures have certainly been blunt enough that they are hard to walk back from if she does. It is at the point that its a little baffling she was ever chosen to such a senior position so young.FF43 said:
Kate Forbes clearly isn't a team player. She'll find it difficult to keep her government together if she does win.TheScreamingEagles said:SNP Cabinet Minister Shona Robison accuses Kate Forbes of "trashing" the SG and "undermining" Nicola Sturgeon. Also:
- demanded "full transparency" on Forbes' views on abortion
- said she would have to think long and hard about serving in her Gov
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1633485235500326913
Either they are saying she did not let her personal views impact her work as they did not know about them - and isn't that therefore saying there's good reason to suppose she could do the same as First Minister? - or they are saying they did know but she was so good at her job it was ok - which would also suggest she'd be an ok choice?1 -
A slightly odd comment [edit] from FF43 as Ms Forbes has been in a cabinet under Ms Sturgeon for years.BartholomewRoberts said:
I completely dislike Kate Forbes and disagree with her politics, and hope she loses the race, but why isn't she a team player from that comment?FF43 said:
Kate Forbes clearly isn't a team player. She'll find it difficult to keep her government together if she does win.TheScreamingEagles said:SNP Cabinet Minister Shona Robison accuses Kate Forbes of "trashing" the SG and "undermining" Nicola Sturgeon. Also:
- demanded "full transparency" on Forbes' views on abortion
- said she would have to think long and hard about serving in her Gov
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1633485235500326913
Could it not equally be that Shona Robison isn't a team player?0 -
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.JosiasJessop said:
???SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.JosiasJessop said:
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.JosiasJessop said:Gary Linekar...
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.0
