The news we hear over the transistor wireless, from the centre of the fighting, gets ever more serious - the announcers from Final Score have pulled out too.
These are dark days for Europe, and we may not be able to find out whether Forfar Athletic beat Cowdenbeath over tea and muffins, as the late winter twilight arrives.
Well Sports Report dropped the classified results as the audience of people who need to wait til 5:00pm to find out the scores is basically nil. You can get live scores online easily. Even a late night highlights show seems antiquated when social media is full of clips mere moments after something interesting happens.
I would expect MOTD to have dismal audience share amongst young people like most BBC content nowadays. And the way football is covered in the UK is likely to get an overdue shakeup if more streaming services bid next time, that's assuming the leagues don't go over-the-top to take more of the money.
Sky Sports put short form highlights of every game on their YouTube channel shortly after final whistle (only available in the UK). They get about 1 million views, but your tiktok generation will be clipping those and sending them around their mates within minutes of that.
That Alistair Campbell tweet is really on the boundary of insanity. Budget cuts to the BBC music department = Dachau and Auschwitz
Well, yes. Everyone has gone OTT on all this, but that possibly wins the biscuit.
On salaries, though, which of us is really comfortable with how people end up being paid? SeanT, for example, has mentioned the enormous earnings that he gets from books of debatable literary value. I've earned perhaps £400K over the years from translating legislative documents which I suspect almost nobody actually reads. Are we well-placed to judge how much MOTD presenters should get?
Today, we have learnt that Lefties are thick, predictable, stupid, herd-like, hyberbolic, surprisingly sensitive, entirely lacking in self-awareness, dumb, possess no sense of irony, hysterical, brainless, and enthusiastic sheep.
Actually, maybe we already knew that.
Did I mention they were idiots?
Anyway, my day beckons.
Happy frothing everyone.
Sounds like it's you that's losing it, yet again.
He'll tell you or me to fuck off or challenge us to a fight soon.
"Amid the noise re @GaryLineker another disastrous move by the BBC in response to the Tory government political pressure and cuts — the abolition of BBC Singers and cuts to BBC orchestras. This is another resonance with 30s Germany — the assault on culture and the arts. 1/2"
I think the content of Lineker's Tweet was clumsy and poorly thought through. There was no need to reference 1930s Germany. Braverman's use of terms such as "invasion" and "betrayal" are pretty standard parts of the modern, hard right, nationalist playbook across Europe. That's all he needed to say. For me, he deserves criticism and if this hadn't become so polarised he might have reflected on what he had written and apologised - but politicians got involved, the BBC management got heavy handed and it's all got out of control.
You say they're part of the "modern, hard right, nationalist playbook" but within living memory we had a centre-left government that appeared to be using exactly the same playbook. The cognitive dissonance of people who supported New Labour but think the current government echoes the Nazis is genuinely fascinating.
John Reid – As Home Secretary whipped up anger against ‘foreigners who come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits’ (direct quote)
David Blunkett – as Home Secretary told British Asians they should speak English in their own homes
Charles Clarke – As Education Secretary said the state should not fund subjects like history and that ‘universities exist to enable the British economy’
Tony Blair – Blamed a spate of murders on ‘black’ culture that lacked ‘discipline’ and said people blaming poverty were being ‘politically correct’
David Blunkett – Brought in bill to cut benefits for asylum seekers and then take their children away into care once they become destitute
David Blunkett – As Home Secretary unveiled plans to force failed asylum to do unwaged work in exchange for “basic subsistence” if their claims were rejected
David Blunkett – Said he had ‘no sympathy’ with asylum seekers from Kosovo and Afghanistan arriving in Britain and said they should ‘go home’
David Blunkett – Suggested asylum seekers should be electronically tagged and tracked by satellite like criminals
Phil Woolas – As immigration minister, attacked charities and lawyers that helped refugees stay in the UK and accused them of being an ‘industry’ with a ‘vested interest’
"Amid the noise re @GaryLineker another disastrous move by the BBC in response to the Tory government political pressure and cuts — the abolition of BBC Singers and cuts to BBC orchestras. This is another resonance with 30s Germany — the assault on culture and the arts. 1/2"
Jesus Christ. What’s wrong with them?!
This is getting as bad as Ken “Hitler” Livingstone
They destroyed most of their content up to,the mid seventies.
Archive selector Pamela Nash said they were only obeying orders.
No defence.
Makes you wonder if the Beeb has always been like it !
To be fair, this was post-Birt. The late '90s commercial-managerial ethos was to dump everything that couldn't immediately be monetised - this is what Poliakoff's "Shooting the Past" was about.
The BBC destroyed its own output, on an industrial scale, up to around 1978.
After then they have desperately been trying to recover it.
I have friends who have recovered material and returned it to them.
But post-Birt they destroyed multiple sub-branches of the organisation who stored things independently, so a lot was lost then. This includes a large number of BBC Radiophonic workshop recordings that were lost when it was junked in the '90s, for instance, or some of the archives of Play for Today and Screen Two.
The earlier BBC management was largely indifferent to its past, but the 1990's one was actively hostile not only to the older programmes but the older and troublesome programme makers or eccentrics, as were a lot of private organisations at this time, too. Organisations like McKinseys, that Birt brought in, laid down the rationalising blueprint at the time.
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
You can watch on catch up without a license but not receive live pictures.
It’s manifestly unfair in the modern broadcast era.
The BBC appears to be about the only broadcaster that has no +1 service. Presumably if it did, you wouldn't need a licence to watch it?
Watching any +1 service counts as live TV so you need a TV licence.
I believe it because it comes about form a definition of consistently available over the air i.e. its a tv channel that is consistently broadcasting over the air. However, watching those same programmes via a catchup (one hour later than the broadcasted show) is absolutely fine.
It's not even "over the air". It's any "live broadcast" from a "recognisable broadcaster" on any format or device, so from a standard TV right down to a phone. As you say, it's actually unenforceable in the modern world, and they only get convictions when people admit to watching things they shouldn't.
I wonder if there were people waiting in line to be gassed at Treblinka who thought “this is easily as bad as the time the BBC cut its funding on symphony orchestras by 15%”
Latest (from the BBC, funnily enough): "Match of the Day pundit Ian Wright has said he'll quit the BBC if it "gets rid" of Lineker."If they get rid of Gary Lineker, I'm out, I'm gone, I'm not staying there," he said on the latest edition of his podcast Wrighty's House"
But surely he should be sacked anyway, for saying something not approved by the government BBC?
Well, the Tories and sundry right-wing freaks on here having exposed themselves as the intellectually deficient, thin skinned hypocrites I think I’ll take a break and enjoy the unexpected sunshine.
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
You can watch on catch up without a license but not receive live pictures.
It’s manifestly unfair in the modern broadcast era.
The BBC appears to be about the only broadcaster that has no +1 service. Presumably if it did, you wouldn't need a licence to watch it?
Watching any +1 service counts as live TV so you need a TV licence.
I believe it because it comes about form a definition of consistently available over the air i.e. its a tv channel that is consistently broadcasting over the air. However, watching those same programmes via a catchup (one hour later than the broadcasted show) is absolutely fine.
It's not even "over the air". It's any "live broadcast" from a "recognisable broadcaster" on any format or device, so from a standard TV right down to a phone. As you say, it's actually unenforceable in the modern world, and they only get convictions when people admit to watching things they shouldn't.
"recognisable broadcaster" is a totally nebulous term. Amazon is classified as such, despite having very few hours of live coverage throughout the year. There are YouTubers / Twitch streamers who broadcast every day for many hours, day in day out, to audiences well in excess of most of the tv channels, but they aren't recognisable broadcaster....but some Freeview channel with 5 viewers is.
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Had exactly that when renovating my current home. After letter two they have a deeply intimidating tone.
One thing you notice when canvassing is the sheer number of houses that have a notice telling TV Licence enforcement officers have had their implied right to enter a property withdrawn.
Heaven forbid anyone should suggest the BBC licence fee enforcement had overtones of 30's Germany...
"Amid the noise re @GaryLineker another disastrous move by the BBC in response to the Tory government political pressure and cuts — the abolition of BBC Singers and cuts to BBC orchestras. This is another resonance with 30s Germany — the assault on culture and the arts. 1/2"
Jesus Christ. What’s wrong with them?!
This is getting as bad as Ken “Hitler” Livingstone
They destroyed most of their content up to,the mid seventies.
Archive selector Pamela Nash said they were only obeying orders.
No defence.
Makes you wonder if the Beeb has always been like it !
To be fair, this was post-Birt. The late '90s commercial-managerial ethos was to dump everything that couldn't immediately be monetised - this is what Poliakoff's "Shooting the Past" was about.
The BBC destroyed its own output, on an industrial scale, up to around 1978.
After then they have desperately been trying to recover it.
I have friends who have recovered material and returned it to them.
But post-Birt they destroyed multiple sub-branches of the organisation who stored things independently, so a lot was lost then. This includes a large number of BBC Radiophonic workshop recordings that were lost when it was junked in the '90s, for instance, or some of the archives of Play for Today and Screen Two. The earlier BBC management was largely indifferent to its past, but the 1990's one was actively hostile, as in a lot of private organisations too. Organisations like McKinseys, that Birt brought in, laid down this blueprint at the time.
The legacy of new labour. Birt was a terrible appointment.
Some BBC managers embraced their past output. Guys like Alan Yentob. He also pushed some stuff on BBC2.
I wonder if there were people waiting in line to be gassed at Treblinka who thought “this is easily as bad as the time the BBC cut its funding on symphony orchestras by 15%”
I told you earlier. You really shouldn't bend yourself out of shape trying to be ridiculous. Even the most casual visitor here already knows. Rest easy.
That Alistair Campbell tweet is really on the boundary of insanity. Budget cuts to the BBC music department = Dachau and Auschwitz
Well, yes. Everyone has gone OTT on all this, but that possibly wins the biscuit.
On salaries, though, which of us is really comfortable with how people end up being paid? SeanT, for example, has mentioned the enormous earnings that he gets from books of debatable literary value. I've earned perhaps £400K over the years from translating legislative documents which I suspect almost nobody actually reads. Are we well-placed to judge how much MOTD presenters should get?
A fair point BUT we all pay Lineker’s salary via the compulsory license fee whereas - thank god - no one is obliged to buy some wretched pulp fiction by @SeanT or some pointless easily-done-by-AI translations from NPXMP
That’s the fundamental issue here. The BBC’s really awkward position as a “national broadcaster” which has to be neutral. And it really DOES
As I’ve said, I don’t think it’s a sustainable model any more. Which is a shame. As the BBC does a lot of good things and is often a fine advert for the UK in general
The news we hear over the transistor wireless, from the centre of the fighting, gets ever more serious - the announcers from Final Score have pulled out too.
These are dark days for Europe, and we may not be able to find out whether Forfar Athletic beat Cowdenbeath over tea and muffins, as the late winter twilight arrives.
Well Sports Report dropped the classified results as the audience of people who need to wait til 5:00pm to find out the scores is basically nil. You can get live scores online easily. Even a late night highlights show seems antiquated when social media is full of clips mere moments after something interesting happens.
I would expect MOTD to have dismal audience share amongst young people like most BBC content nowadays. And the way football is covered in the UK is likely to get an overdue shakeup if more streaming services bid next time, that's assuming the leagues don't go over-the-top to take more of the money.
Sky Sports put short form highlights of every game on their YouTube channel shortly after final whistle (only available in the UK). They get about 1 million views, but your tiktok generation will be clipping those and sending them around their mates within minutes of that.
You get goals online within seconds of broadcast on social media. People pride themselves on their fast posting. Go to Reddit Soccer and you will see goals for all the big matches very shortly after they occur.
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Had exactly that when renovating my current home. After letter two they have a deeply intimidating tone.
One thing you notice when canvassing is the sheer number of houses that have a notice telling TV Licence enforcement officers have had their implied right to enter a property withdrawn.
Heaven forbid anyone should suggest the BBC licence fee enforcement had overtones of 30's Germany...
My understanding is that withdrawing the implied right is actually not a great idea, because that does actually give Capita a justification to ask for a police warrant to inspect the premises under the guise of they are denying the right specifically against us to do our job.
If you simply say no thank you, I don't want to talk to you, it is basically impossible for warrants to be issued because there is no basis at all that one is required.
That Alistair Campbell tweet is really on the boundary of insanity. Budget cuts to the BBC music department = Dachau and Auschwitz
Well, yes. Everyone has gone OTT on all this, but that possibly wins the biscuit.
On salaries, though, which of us is really comfortable with how people end up being paid? SeanT, for example, has mentioned the enormous earnings that he gets from books of debatable literary value. I've earned perhaps £400K over the years from translating legislative documents which I suspect almost nobody actually reads. Are we well-placed to judge how much MOTD presenters should get?
A fair point BUT we all pay Lineker’s salary via the compulsory license fee whereas - thank god - no one is obliged to buy some wretched pulp fiction by @SeanT or some pointless easily-done-by-AI translations from NPXMP
That’s the fundamental issue here. The BBC’s really awkward position as a “national broadcaster” which has to be neutral. And it really DOES
As I’ve said, I don’t think it’s a sustainable model any more. Which is a shame. As the BBC does a lot of good things and is often a fine advert for the UK in general
That Alistair Campbell tweet is really on the boundary of insanity. Budget cuts to the BBC music department = Dachau and Auschwitz
Well, yes. Everyone has gone OTT on all this, but that possibly wins the biscuit.
On salaries, though, which of us is really comfortable with how people end up being paid? SeanT, for example, has mentioned the enormous earnings that he gets from books of debatable literary value. I've earned perhaps £400K over the years from translating legislative documents which I suspect almost nobody actually reads. Are we well-placed to judge how much MOTD presenters should get?
This is an area where commercial decisions (or, in the case of the BBC, pseudo-commercial decisions) apply.
Crudely put, the BBC has decided that paying Gary Lineker a fortune and, for that matter, maintaining football rights full stop, are greater priorities for it than providing any meaningful local radio service in England (outside of bloody London, as per,) or continuing to employ a chorus of classical singers. One logically assumes that a lot more people give a toss about football than local radio or choral singing, so the former gets a decent share of a shrinking pot of money and the latter doesn't.
It's ultimately all about money: the more public grumbling about the Beeb offering nothing that put upon licence fee payers are interested in, the more precarious the position of its main source of funding, of course.
"Amid the noise re @GaryLineker another disastrous move by the BBC in response to the Tory government political pressure and cuts — the abolition of BBC Singers and cuts to BBC orchestras. This is another resonance with 30s Germany — the assault on culture and the arts. 1/2"
Jesus Christ. What’s wrong with them?!
This is getting as bad as Ken “Hitler” Livingstone
They destroyed most of their content up to,the mid seventies.
Archive selector Pamela Nash said they were only obeying orders.
No defence.
Makes you wonder if the Beeb has always been like it !
To be fair, this was post-Birt. The late '90s commercial-managerial ethos was to dump everything that couldn't immediately be monetised - this is what Poliakoff's "Shooting the Past" was about.
The BBC destroyed its own output, on an industrial scale, up to around 1978.
After then they have desperately been trying to recover it.
I have friends who have recovered material and returned it to them.
But post-Birt they destroyed multiple sub-branches of the organisation who stored things independently, so a lot was lost then. This includes a large number of BBC Radiophonic workshop recordings that were lost when it was junked in the '90s, for instance, or some of the archives of Play for Today and Screen Two. The earlier BBC management was largely indifferent to its past, but the 1990's one was actively hostile, as were a lot of private organisations at this timetoo. Organisations like McKinseys, that Birt brought in, laid down the rationalising blueprint at the time.
Slightly connected but I believe Orwell made dozens of broadcasts while he was an editor in the World Service but no recording survives. Remarkable to me that we can’t hear the literal tones of someone who had such a distinctive authorial voice. I’ve occasionally thought that the quest for a semi-mythical recording would make quite a good play, perhaps on the BBC..
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Got those for my late dad's house. Even less sense as it's not even as much of an offence in Scotland as it is south of the border.
"Amid the noise re @GaryLineker another disastrous move by the BBC in response to the Tory government political pressure and cuts — the abolition of BBC Singers and cuts to BBC orchestras. This is another resonance with 30s Germany — the assault on culture and the arts. 1/2"
Jesus Christ. What’s wrong with them?!
This is getting as bad as Ken “Hitler” Livingstone
They destroyed most of their content up to,the mid seventies.
Archive selector Pamela Nash said they were only obeying orders.
No defence.
Makes you wonder if the Beeb has always been like it !
To be fair, this was post-Birt. The late '90s commercial-managerial ethos was to dump everything that couldn't immediately be monetised - this is what Poliakoff's "Shooting the Past" was about.
The BBC destroyed its own output, on an industrial scale, up to around 1978.
After then they have desperately been trying to recover it.
I have friends who have recovered material and returned it to them.
But post-Birt they destroyed multiple sub-branches of the organisation who stored things independently, so a lot was lost then. This includes a large number of BBC Radiophonic workshop recordings that were lost when it was junked in the '90s, for instance, or some of the archives of Play for Today and Screen Two. The earlier BBC management was largely indifferent to its past, but the 1990's one was actively hostile, as in a lot of private organisations too. Organisations like McKinseys, that Birt brought in, laid down this blueprint at the time.
The legacy of new labour. Birt was a terrible appointment.
Some BBC managers embraced their past output. Guys like Alan Yentob. He also pushed some stuff on BBC2.
He would have been a great appointment as DG, he applied and was desprerate to raise the cultural and intellectual standard again, and also had multiple personal connections with programme-makers rather than bureaucrats, wanting to enthuse and revitalise the whole organisation again. Too artsy to get through in the modern BBC, though, and neither Tory or particularly New Labour-friendly, at the time.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
I can assure you that globally each of those has far more profile than Clarkson who is known primarily in English speaking countries only. Clarkson’s gammon demographic is somewhat limited.
The news we hear over the transistor wireless, from the centre of the fighting, gets ever more serious - the announcers from Final Score have pulled out too.
These are dark days for Europe, and we may not be able to find out whether Forfar Athletic beat Cowdenbeath over tea and muffins, as the late winter twilight arrives.
Well Sports Report dropped the classified results as the audience of people who need to wait til 5:00pm to find out the scores is basically nil. You can get live scores online easily. Even a late night highlights show seems antiquated when social media is full of clips mere moments after something interesting happens.
I would expect MOTD to have dismal audience share amongst young people like most BBC content nowadays. And the way football is covered in the UK is likely to get an overdue shakeup if more streaming services bid next time, that's assuming the leagues don't go over-the-top to take more of the money.
Sky Sports put short form highlights of every game on their YouTube channel shortly after final whistle (only available in the UK). They get about 1 million views, but your tiktok generation will be clipping those and sending them around their mates within minutes of that.
You get goals online within seconds of broadcast on social media. People pride themselves on their fast posting. Go to Reddit Soccer and you will see goals for all the big matches very shortly after they occur.
I think a significant number of people do want more than just the goals, they want the misses etc, hence Sky Sports short form highlights getting a decent audience, and as I say, they get ripped and shared away from YouTube.
Interesting interview with Greg Dyke on R4. After noting he'd refrained from commenting at all on BBC management ever since his departure, he was strongly of the opinion that it's simply not realistic to require 'impartiality' outside of work for anyone but those in news and current affairs.
Once you start unpicking it, it becomes insane.
What counts as making your opinions known? Talking to your family? Your mates down the pub? Commenting anonymously on a premier political blog? Using an easily-decoded nom-de-plume on said blog?
What counts as contributing to the BBC? Does it go all the way down to Eric the Gardener who hosts the "Green Fingers" slot every week on BBC Radio Countyshire?
The only lines that make sense is the existing ones, that News people stay inscrutable and nobody causes a riot. And although I can understand some people not liking the 1930's Germany comparison, it doesn't do that.
So Lineker's comments don't come in that category. That's why the BBC can't just dump him- they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on. Hence the current impasse.
The current DG of the BBC has shown he isn't up to the job. He hasn't thought this through. He could well end up it's first casualty. People underestimate the 'talent' at their peril. The BBC have done reasonably well because of their reputation so can attract the best people without having to compete for them in the market. But that reputation can quickly disappear
The best football people aren't hosting football on the BBC.....the world has moved on and the MOTD talking heads show time and time again they don't actually know much about modern football tactics. You only have to compare TIFO football analysis and realise the difference in depth and understanding.
Yes exactly. I made this point earlier and the counterpoint is people watch the pundits for entertainment not information.
Taz, I find it unbelievable that anyone can get entertainment from linekar , wright , shearer et al unless it is in respect to being similar to the Three Stooges or Laurel and Hardy
Im noticing a lot of people going crazy the last few years. Public figures with huge followings. The likes of Alastair Campbell Russell Brand etc Meantime conspiracy theries that would have been laughed at in 2019 now going mainstream.
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Had exactly that when renovating my current home. After letter two they have a deeply intimidating tone.
One thing you notice when canvassing is the sheer number of houses that have a notice telling TV Licence enforcement officers have had their implied right to enter a property withdrawn.
Heaven forbid anyone should suggest the BBC licence fee enforcement had overtones of 30's Germany...
My understanding is that withdrawing the implied right is actually not a great idea, because that does actually give Capita a justification to ask for a police warrant to inspect the premises under the guise of they are denying the right specifically against us. If you simply say no thank you, I don't want to talk to you, it is basically impossible for warrants to be issued because there is no basis at all that one is required.
You see loads of tossers on YouTube withdrawing implied right and going toe to toe with Capita employees on the doorstep. It's much easier to play by the rules, inform Capita you don't need one, genuinely don't watch stuff you shouldn't and just get on with enjoying life.
I wonder if there were people waiting in line to be gassed at Treblinka who thought “this is easily as bad as the time the BBC cut its funding on symphony orchestras by 15%”
The BBC is worse than the Nazis. At least there was a classical orchestra in Auschwitz:
Today, we have learnt that Lefties are thick, predictable, stupid, herd-like, hyberbolic, surprisingly sensitive, entirely lacking in self-awareness, dumb, possess no sense of irony, hysterical, brainless, and enthusiastic sheep.
Actually, maybe we already knew that.
Did I mention they were idiots?
Anyway, my day beckons.
Happy frothing everyone.
Is CR off for a nice, quiet, totally normal pub lunch?
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Had exactly that when renovating my current home. After letter two they have a deeply intimidating tone.
One thing you notice when canvassing is the sheer number of houses that have a notice telling TV Licence enforcement officers have had their implied right to enter a property withdrawn.
Heaven forbid anyone should suggest the BBC licence fee enforcement had overtones of 30's Germany...
My understanding is that withdrawing the implied right is actually not a great idea, because that does actually give Capita a justification to ask for a police warrant to inspect the premises under the guise of they are denying the right specifically against us. If you simply say no thank you, I don't want to talk to you, it is basically impossible for warrants to be issued because there is no basis at all that one is required.
You see loads of tossers on YouTube withdrawing implied right and going toe to toe with Capita employees on the doorstep. It's much easier to play by the rules, inform Capita you don't need one, genuinely don't watch stuff you shouldn't and just get on with enjoying life.
Well even if you don't play by the rules, it unenforceable if you just appear to play by the rules. Getting into a shouting match about get off my land will somebody who doesn't have any real legal powers will just escalate the situation to where the police may be informed and then you will more than likely have an issue.
What is also interesting is that even those caught out, the fines handed out average around one years worth of tv licence fee. Those that end up with much worse are either people who then decide to take a stand or can't actually afford it.
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
You can watch on catch up without a license but not receive live pictures.
It’s manifestly unfair in the modern broadcast era.
The BBC appears to be about the only broadcaster that has no +1 service. Presumably if it did, you wouldn't need a licence to watch it?
Watching any +1 service counts as live TV so you need a TV licence.
Well, that's a bit of a weird definition of "live"! I wonder what the justification is.
I wonder if there were people waiting in line to be gassed at Treblinka who thought “this is easily as bad as the time the BBC cut its funding on symphony orchestras by 15%”
The BBC is worse than the Nazis. At least there was a classical orchestra in Auschwitz:
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Got those for my late dad's house. Even less sense as it's not even as much of an offence in Scotland as it is south of the border.
Though the BBC likes to keep such things in the dark, I believe Scotland has the highest refusal rate on the licence in the UK. I imagine discretion is the better part of valour north of Gretna, and the detector vans and associated bs are even more phantasmogoric.
I wonder if there were people waiting in line to be gassed at Treblinka who thought “this is easily as bad as the time the BBC cut its funding on symphony orchestras by 15%”
The BBC is worse than the Nazis. At least there was a classical orchestra in Auschwitz:
Striking BBC presenters proving the point that they operate in a left-wing echo chamber. They didn’t give a damn about free speech when it came to lockdown harms or the vaccine injured or JK Rowling. In fact, they openly campaigned to shut down those opposing views as “dangerous”
Im noticing a lot of people going crazy the last few years. Public figures with huge followings. The likes of Alastair Campbell Russell Brand etc Meantime conspiracy theries that would have been laughed at in 2019 now going mainstream.
Russell Brand is another good call for gone absolutely batshit crazy in middle age. I mean he was never exactly middle of the road kinda of guy, but I have on occasion wondered what he is blabbering on about that got him banned from doing live shows on YouTube and having to use Rumble to broadcast, and its proper mad shit (not exactly a million miles away from Alex Jones shtick that literally everything is a global one world government giant conspiracy).
Today, we have learnt that Lefties are thick, predictable, stupid, herd-like, hyberbolic, surprisingly sensitive, entirely lacking in self-awareness, dumb, possess no sense of irony, hysterical, brainless, and enthusiastic sheep.
Actually, maybe we already knew that.
Did I mention they were idiots?
Anyway, my day beckons.
Happy frothing everyone.
Sounds like it's you that's losing it, yet again.
He'll tell you or me to fuck off or challenge us to a fight soon.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Took you a while. All greats. Lineker is a unicorn. A footballer who reached the very top of the world game AND a charismatic broadcaster.
Anyway. I guess the more we talk about how much he’s made and less about the government dehumanising people and playing fast and loose with the law, the more it suits you.
Do you think Suella Braverman is a Nazi?
No. Do you?
I am concerned about a government that dehumanises people and plays fast and loose with the law. Does that bother you, even a tiny bit?
Well said. The problem with Nazi comparisons, it allows people to imply moral acceptability purely because they have no intention of firing up the gas chambers.
Which is preposterous.
Lineker never said it was a Nazi policy though. Read what he actually wrote
Thats ridiculous sophistry though - did you think he was talking about the SPD, or the KPD or the Stalhelm, or Alfred Hugenborg, or Fritz von Papen...
No - like everyone, the assumption is National Socialists. Because thats what he meant.
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Got those for my late dad's house. Even less sense as it's not even as much of an offence in Scotland as it is south of the border.
Though the BBC likes to keep such things in the dark, I believe Scotland has the highest refusal rate on the licence in the UK. I imagine discretion is the better part of valour north of Gretna, and the detector vans and associated bs are even more phantasmogoric.
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Got those for my late dad's house. Even less sense as it's not even as much of an offence in Scotland as it is south of the border.
Though the BBC likes to keep such things in the dark, I believe Scotland has the highest refusal rate on the licence in the UK. I imagine discretion is the better part of valour north of Gretna, and the detector vans and associated bs are even more phantasmogoric.
I think I'm right in saying that there has never been a conviction on the evidence supplied by a detector van. Because they have never existed....
I wonder if there were people waiting in line to be gassed at Treblinka who thought “this is easily as bad as the time the BBC cut its funding on symphony orchestras by 15%”
The BBC is worse than the Nazis. At least there was a classical orchestra in Auschwitz:
Today, we have learnt that Lefties are thick, predictable, stupid, herd-like, hyberbolic, surprisingly sensitive, entirely lacking in self-awareness, dumb, possess no sense of irony, hysterical, brainless, and enthusiastic sheep.
Actually, maybe we already knew that.
Did I mention they were idiots?
Anyway, my day beckons.
Happy frothing everyone.
Is CR off for a nice, quiet, totally normal pub lunch?
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Got those for my late dad's house. Even less sense as it's not even as much of an offence in Scotland as it is south of the border.
Though the BBC likes to keep such things in the dark, I believe Scotland has the highest refusal rate on the licence in the UK. I imagine discretion is the better part of valour north of Gretna, and the detector vans and associated bs are even more phantasmogoric.
I think I'm right in saying that there has never been a conviction on the evidence supplied by a detector van. Because they have never existed....
I love the story about back in the day the intelligence services contacting the BBC to ask about their detector vans because they appeared to at the time have technology that the intelligence community didn't really have and wanted to know if they could find out more about how they achieved this.
Im noticing a lot of people going crazy the last few years. Public figures with huge followings. The likes of Alastair Campbell Russell Brand etc Meantime conspiracy theries that would have been laughed at in 2019 now going mainstream.
Russell Brand is another good call for gone absolutely batshit crazy in middle age. I mean he was never exactly middle of the road kinda of guy, but I have on occasion wondered what he is blabbering on about that got him banned from doing live shows on YouTube and having to use Rumble to broadcast, and its proper mad shit (not exactly a million miles away from Alex Jones shtick that literally everything is a global one world government giant conspiracy).
He was on Tucker Carlson the other day Tucker Carlson has shown videos he says proves Jan6 is a lie...expertly riling up middle america.
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Got those for my late dad's house. Even less sense as it's not even as much of an offence in Scotland as it is south of the border.
Though the BBC likes to keep such things in the dark, I believe Scotland has the highest refusal rate on the licence in the UK. I imagine discretion is the better part of valour north of Gretna, and the detector vans and associated bs are even more phantasmogoric.
I think I'm right in saying that there has never been a conviction on the evidence supplied by a detector van. Because they have never existed....
Jeremy Clarkson called for striking workers to be shot in front of their families.
Continued to present Top Gear for 5 years.
Gary Lineker criticises government proposals on refugees.
Taken off air after 3 days.
Free speech brigade?
Apparently Mr C was doing the shooting suggestion as part of a discussion of extreme views. So I was assured by a PBer last night.
Well whoever said that was talking nonsense because I remember it well from the One Show. It was a very funny skit on the BBC telling people that views had to be balanced, so he did the balanced bit and then when asked what he really thought went off on one. It was excellent and very funny.
Striking BBC presenters proving the point that they operate in a left-wing echo chamber. They didn’t give a damn about free speech when it came to lockdown harms or the vaccine injured or JK Rowling. In fact, they openly campaigned to shut down those opposing views as “dangerous”
I wonder if there were people waiting in line to be gassed at Treblinka who thought “this is easily as bad as the time the BBC cut its funding on symphony orchestras by 15%”
The BBC is worse than the Nazis. At least there was a classical orchestra in Auschwitz:
First they came for the Jews, and gassed them all, and I said nothing
Then they came for the asylum seekers, and said mean things, and I said nothing
Then they came for the BBC Singers and that really got my goat
Has anyone heard from the Cliff Adams Singers lately? ‘Sing Something Simple’ used to come on after the Top 40 when Radio 1 shared its FM band with Radio 2. Reminded me I had to go back to school in the AM. Hated it. A similarly disgruntled Gen Xer probably did for them.
Im noticing a lot of people going crazy the last few years. Public figures with huge followings. The likes of Alastair Campbell Russell Brand etc Meantime conspiracy theries that would have been laughed at in 2019 now going mainstream.
Russell Brand is another good call for gone absolutely batshit crazy in middle age. I mean he was never exactly middle of the road kinda of guy, but I have on occasion wondered what he is blabbering on about that got him banned from doing live shows on YouTube and having to use Rumble to broadcast, and its proper mad shit (not exactly a million miles away from Alex Jones shtick that literally everything is a global one world government giant conspiracy).
He was on Tucker Carlson the other day Tucker Carlson has shown videos he says proves Jan6 is a lie...expertly riling up middle america.
One thing we learned from Alex Jones though, proper mad shit conspiracy theory shows, they are very popular and the viewership love to buy all sorts of overpriced tat. Its a brilliant business model really as long as you know where the line is i.e. don't go calling an easily provable mass shooting a hoax and all of the victims were crisis actors, stick to stuff that is vague and unprovable one way or another.
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Got those for my late dad's house. Even less sense as it's not even as much of an offence in Scotland as it is south of the border.
Though the BBC likes to keep such things in the dark, I believe Scotland has the highest refusal rate on the licence in the UK. I imagine discretion is the better part of valour north of Gretna, and the detector vans and associated bs are even more phantasmogoric.
I think I'm right in saying that there has never been a conviction on the evidence supplied by a detector van. Because they have never existed....
PS We seem to be missing something good:
'In 2014, a householder invoiced TV Licensing £40 as a 'processing fee' for 'opening, reading and filing' a TV Licensing letter. Because TV Licensing did not pay the charge, the householder took the claim to the County Court, eventually winning the case and receiving the fee plus other costs incurred.[125]'
That Alistair Campbell tweet is really on the boundary of insanity. Budget cuts to the BBC music department = Dachau and Auschwitz
Well, yes. Everyone has gone OTT on all this, but that possibly wins the biscuit.
On salaries, though, which of us is really comfortable with how people end up being paid? SeanT, for example, has mentioned the enormous earnings that he gets from books of debatable literary value. I've earned perhaps £400K over the years from translating legislative documents which I suspect almost nobody actually reads. Are we well-placed to judge how much MOTD presenters should get?
A fair point BUT we all pay Lineker’s salary via the compulsory license fee whereas - thank god - no one is obliged to buy some wretched pulp fiction by @SeanT or some pointless easily-done-by-AI translations from NPXMP
That’s the fundamental issue here. The BBC’s really awkward position as a “national broadcaster” which has to be neutral. And it really DOES
As I’ve said, I don’t think it’s a sustainable model any more. Which is a shame. As the BBC does a lot of good things and is often a fine advert for the UK in general
It's really not compulsory to have a TV licence.
I don't have one. If the BBC were fulfilling the remit of a public service broadcaster, I would get one. But, it isn't.
I want to see Gary Lineker talking about Quantum Gravity, Iain Wright on the late novels of Charlotte Bronte, and so on.
There is way too much stuff about footy -- an overwhelming majority people are not interested in it.
There is someone out there who is a better football presenter than Gary Lineker: Kate Abdo. I bet the BBC could pick her up for a more reasonable cost.
Today, we have learnt that Lefties are thick, predictable, stupid, herd-like, hyberbolic, surprisingly sensitive, entirely lacking in self-awareness, dumb, possess no sense of irony, hysterical, brainless, and enthusiastic sheep.
Actually, maybe we already knew that.
Did I mention they were idiots?
Anyway, my day beckons.
Happy frothing everyone.
Is CR off for a nice, quiet, totally normal pub lunch?
"Amid the noise re @GaryLineker another disastrous move by the BBC in response to the Tory government political pressure and cuts — the abolition of BBC Singers and cuts to BBC orchestras. This is another resonance with 30s Germany — the assault on culture and the arts. 1/2"
Jesus Christ. What’s wrong with them?!
This is getting as bad as Ken “Hitler” Livingstone
They destroyed most of their content up to,the mid seventies.
Archive selector Pamela Nash said they were only obeying orders.
No defence.
Makes you wonder if the Beeb has always been like it !
To be fair, this was post-Birt. The late '90s commercial-managerial ethos was to dump everything that couldn't immediately be monetised - this is what Poliakoff's "Shooting the Past" was about.
The BBC destroyed its own output, on an industrial scale, up to around 1978.
After then they have desperately been trying to recover it.
I have friends who have recovered material and returned it to them.
But post-Birt they destroyed multiple sub-branches of the organisation who stored things independently, so a lot was lost then. This includes a large number of BBC Radiophonic workshop recordings that were lost when it was junked in the '90s, for instance, or some of the archives of Play for Today and Screen Two. The earlier BBC management was largely indifferent to its past, but the 1990's one was actively hostile, as were a lot of private organisations at this timetoo. Organisations like McKinseys, that Birt brought in, laid down the rationalising blueprint at the time.
Slightly connected but I believe Orwell made dozens of broadcasts while he was an editor in the World Service but no recording survives. Remarkable to me that we can’t hear the literal tones of someone who had such a distinctive authorial voice. I’ve occasionally thought that the quest for a semi-mythical recording would make quite a good play, perhaps on the BBC..
There used to be a torrent site that let people share recordings of 'unavailable' BBC (well, UK) radio shows. Lots of drama's in particular which people had recorded onto tape when they were broadcast. It was a real goldmine of stuff. Then the BBC started threatening the owner. Owner asked the BBC if they had copies and were told 'some yes, some are lost. but we're not going to make them available even if we have them as they are not "broadcast quality"'.
Today, we have learnt that Lefties are thick, predictable, stupid, herd-like, hyberbolic, surprisingly sensitive, entirely lacking in self-awareness, dumb, possess no sense of irony, hysterical, brainless, and enthusiastic sheep.
Actually, maybe we already knew that.
Did I mention they were idiots?
Anyway, my day beckons.
Happy frothing everyone.
Is CR off for a nice, quiet, totally normal pub lunch?
There is someone out there who is a better football presenter than Gary Lineker: Kate Abdo. I bet the BBC could pick her up for a more reasonable cost.
She is extremely talented presenter. Particularly impressive is the wide range of languages she can speak fluently, enabling her to do real time translation live on air when footballers give interviews and also being able to interview them herself in their native languages.
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Got those for my late dad's house. Even less sense as it's not even as much of an offence in Scotland as it is south of the border.
Though the BBC likes to keep such things in the dark, I believe Scotland has the highest refusal rate on the licence in the UK. I imagine discretion is the better part of valour north of Gretna, and the detector vans and associated bs are even more phantasmogoric.
I think I'm right in saying that there has never been a conviction on the evidence supplied by a detector van. Because they have never existed....
I wonder if there were people waiting in line to be gassed at Treblinka who thought “this is easily as bad as the time the BBC cut its funding on symphony orchestras by 15%”
The BBC is worse than the Nazis. At least there was a classical orchestra in Auschwitz:
First they came for the Jews, and gassed them all, and I said nothing
Then they came for the asylum seekers, and said mean things, and I said nothing
Then they came for the BBC Singers and that really got my goat
Has anyone heard from the Cliff Adams Singers lately? ‘Sing Something Simple’ used to come on after the Top 40 when Radio 1 shared its FM band with Radio 2. Reminded me I had to go back to school in the AM. Hated it. A similarly disgruntled Gen Xer probably did for them.
Gassed, apparently.
I know. Hard to believe. Not just one of them either. They gassed every single Cliff Adams Singer, just like that - and then they burned all their LPs as “degenerate art”
They actually asked the Tory minister how they could justify this. He said it was “The Vinyl Solution”
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Got those for my late dad's house. Even less sense as it's not even as much of an offence in Scotland as it is south of the border.
Though the BBC likes to keep such things in the dark, I believe Scotland has the highest refusal rate on the licence in the UK. I imagine discretion is the better part of valour north of Gretna, and the detector vans and associated bs are even more phantasmogoric.
I think I'm right in saying that there has never been a conviction on the evidence supplied by a detector van. Because they have never existed....
PS We seem to be missing something good:
'In 2014, a householder invoiced TV Licensing £40 as a 'processing fee' for 'opening, reading and filing' a TV Licensing letter. Because TV Licensing did not pay the charge, the householder took the claim to the County Court, eventually winning the case and receiving the fee plus other costs incurred.[125]'
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Got those for my late dad's house. Even less sense as it's not even as much of an offence in Scotland as it is south of the border.
Though the BBC likes to keep such things in the dark, I believe Scotland has the highest refusal rate on the licence in the UK. I imagine discretion is the better part of valour north of Gretna, and the detector vans and associated bs are even more phantasmogoric.
I think I'm right in saying that there has never been a conviction on the evidence supplied by a detector van. Because they have never existed....
They do seem to have worked off the uninitentional emissions from the set, which makes sense enough for a detached house. But one wonders how they coped with a tower block - never mind the modern era where you can watch on anything from a CRT to a refrigerator for all I know.
Edit: apparently such emissions are common. There is the story of ISTR a RAF prisoner in WW2 who told the Germans that their submarine's radar detectors or something were emitting stuff which the RAF was homing in on - purely as a complete lie to stop them bothering him. But when they tested it turned out to be true that the sets were emitting, cue complete shut down and a great help for the RAF/RN while the Germans sorted something out.
That Alistair Campbell tweet is really on the boundary of insanity. Budget cuts to the BBC music department = Dachau and Auschwitz
Well, yes. Everyone has gone OTT on all this, but that possibly wins the biscuit.
On salaries, though, which of us is really comfortable with how people end up being paid? SeanT, for example, has mentioned the enormous earnings that he gets from books of debatable literary value. I've earned perhaps £400K over the years from translating legislative documents which I suspect almost nobody actually reads. Are we well-placed to judge how much MOTD presenters should get?
A fair point BUT we all pay Lineker’s salary via the compulsory license fee whereas - thank god - no one is obliged to buy some wretched pulp fiction by @SeanT or some pointless easily-done-by-AI translations from NPXMP
That’s the fundamental issue here. The BBC’s really awkward position as a “national broadcaster” which has to be neutral. And it really DOES
As I’ve said, I don’t think it’s a sustainable model any more. Which is a shame. As the BBC does a lot of good things and is often a fine advert for the UK in general
It's really not compulsory to have a TV licence.
It's not in the least compulsory. The very few things the BBC makes that are worth watching - such as Happy Valley - you can watch pay-per-view on Amazon or wherever. In this day and age you don't need to watch anything live, so no problem with watching anything from other broadcasters on demand.
That Alistair Campbell tweet is really on the boundary of insanity. Budget cuts to the BBC music department = Dachau and Auschwitz
Well, yes. Everyone has gone OTT on all this, but that possibly wins the biscuit.
On salaries, though, which of us is really comfortable with how people end up being paid? SeanT, for example, has mentioned the enormous earnings that he gets from books of debatable literary value. I've earned perhaps £400K over the years from translating legislative documents which I suspect almost nobody actually reads. Are we well-placed to judge how much MOTD presenters should get?
A fair point BUT we all pay Lineker’s salary via the compulsory license fee whereas - thank god - no one is obliged to buy some wretched pulp fiction by @SeanT or some pointless easily-done-by-AI translations from NPXMP
That’s the fundamental issue here. The BBC’s really awkward position as a “national broadcaster” which has to be neutral. And it really DOES
As I’ve said, I don’t think it’s a sustainable model any more. Which is a shame. As the BBC does a lot of good things and is often a fine advert for the UK in general
It's really not compulsory to have a TV licence.
I don't have one. If the BBC were fulfilling the remit of a public service broadcaster, I would get one. But, it isn't.
I want to see Gary Lineker talking about Quantum Gravity, Iain Wright on the late novels of Charlotte Bronte, and so on.
There is way too much stuff about footy -- an overwhelming majority people are not interested in it.
Maybe it's time for a French-style programme on footy, in the way late-night BBC would have experimented in 1969.
French media-star Philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy and legendary German social theorist Habermas discuss the role of football in culture, surrounded by alcohol and leather armchairs, After-Dark style, with the expectation of fisticuffs. Joan Bakewell in attendance.
I wonder if there were people waiting in line to be gassed at Treblinka who thought “this is easily as bad as the time the BBC cut its funding on symphony orchestras by 15%”
The BBC is worse than the Nazis. At least there was a classical orchestra in Auschwitz:
First they came for the Jews, and gassed them all, and I said nothing
Then they came for the asylum seekers, and said mean things, and I said nothing
Then they came for the BBC Singers and that really got my goat
Has anyone heard from the Cliff Adams Singers lately? ‘Sing Something Simple’ used to come on after the Top 40 when Radio 1 shared its FM band with Radio 2. Reminded me I had to go back to school in the AM. Hated it. A similarly disgruntled Gen Xer probably did for them.
Gassed, apparently.
I know. Hard to believe. Not just one of them either. They gassed every single Cliff Adams Singer, just like that - and then they burned all their LPs as “degenerate art”
They actually asked the Tory minister how they could justify this. He said it was “The Vinyl Solution”
I wonder if there were people waiting in line to be gassed at Treblinka who thought “this is easily as bad as the time the BBC cut its funding on symphony orchestras by 15%”
The BBC is worse than the Nazis. At least there was a classical orchestra in Auschwitz:
First they came for the Jews, and gassed them all, and I said nothing
Then they came for the asylum seekers, and said mean things, and I said nothing
Then they came for the BBC Singers and that really got my goat
Has anyone heard from the Cliff Adams Singers lately? ‘Sing Something Simple’ used to come on after the Top 40 when Radio 1 shared its FM band with Radio 2. Reminded me I had to go back to school in the AM. Hated it. A similarly disgruntled Gen Xer probably did for them.
Gassed, apparently.
I know. Hard to believe. Not just one of them either. They gassed every single Cliff Adams Singer, just like that - and then they burned all their LPs as “degenerate art”
They actually asked the Tory minister how they could justify this. He said it was “The Vinyl Solution”
Look, I’m not saying necessarily that I agree with the genocidal elimination of the entirety of the Cliff Adams Singers, I’m just saying that we have to look at the context of the times before casting judgement on the perpetrators, who were in all likelihood only following the orders of their superiors at Radio 1.
The funny thing is you can just imagine the kind of discussion that took place.
"Prime Minister, in line with your cunning plan of getting tough with migrants to win back the racist vote, let's really get the BBC to crack the whip against broadcasters who aren't toeing the line. Good idea?"
Sunak grins inanely.
Phone call to BBC ...
.. And now this ...
It may have been a distraction tactic on their part to get Sunak bunging the French £500mn in return for being smiled at for a couple of hours off the front pages.
Im noticing a lot of people going crazy the last few years. Public figures with huge followings. The likes of Alastair Campbell Russell Brand etc Meantime conspiracy theries that would have been laughed at in 2019 now going mainstream.
Russell Brand is another good call for gone absolutely batshit crazy in middle age. I mean he was never exactly middle of the road kinda of guy, but I have on occasion wondered what he is blabbering on about that got him banned from doing live shows on YouTube and having to use Rumble to broadcast, and its proper mad shit (not exactly a million miles away from Alex Jones shtick that literally everything is a global one world government giant conspiracy).
Also look at Scott Adams, the Dilbert creator. I think a lot of the people have a particular deficiency for the effects of social media. They can easily get into rabbit holes, get riled up by people playing on their prejudices, and the constant inundation of content ends up destroying their critical thinking and they go off the deep end. Lockdown made it all worse as it was their only means of stimulation and it broke some people's minds.
I think Lineker's tweet is defensible politically though whether within the BBC's impartiality guidelines I don't know.
Indeed. It would be interesting if Lineker took them to court for a decision over that. Not that there's any particular reason he would want to bother, unless in the public interest.
The funny thing is you can just imagine the kind of discussion that took place.
"Prime Minister, in line with your cunning plan of getting tough with migrants to win back the racist vote, let's really get the BBC to crack the whip against broadcasters who aren't toeing the line. Good idea?"
Sunak grins inanely.
Phone call to BBC ...
.. And now this ...
It may have been a distraction tactic on their part to get Sunak bunging the French £500mn in return for being smiled at for a couple of hours off the front pages.
I'd imagine the Government were hoping for the Macron-Sunak deal to be leading on all the Sunday front pages. Now no-one is going to notice.
Today, we have learnt that Lefties are thick, predictable, stupid, herd-like, hyberbolic, surprisingly sensitive, entirely lacking in self-awareness, dumb, possess no sense of irony, hysterical, brainless, and enthusiastic sheep.
Actually, maybe we already knew that.
Did I mention they were idiots?
Anyway, my day beckons.
Happy frothing everyone.
Sounds like it's you that's losing it, yet again.
He'll tell you or me to fuck off or challenge us to a fight soon.
Which you richly deserved.
You drove two friends of mine off the site- @Charles and @Cyclefree - who I know in real life, and you've been personally abusive to me (repeatedly) for no reason other than the fact you dislike my politics.
I am sympathetic to the fact you have mental health issues - and I don't want anyone to suffer from that - but your needy behaviour where you are desperate to be both right and liked (coupled with nastiness and abuse on top) is totally unacceptable - and has real world impacts - and doesn't get a free pass from me for its impact on people I care about. You more than anyone should know that.
There is someone out there who is a better football presenter than Gary Lineker: Kate Abdo. I bet the BBC could pick her up for a more reasonable cost.
She is extremely talented presenter. Particularly impressive is the wide range of languages she can speak fluently, enabling her to do real time translation live on air when footballers give interviews and also being able to interview them herself in their native languages.
Interesting. Would the BBC be looking for talent nowadays though?
The funny thing is you can just imagine the kind of discussion that took place.
"Prime Minister, in line with your cunning plan of getting tough with migrants to win back the racist vote, let's really get the BBC to crack the whip against broadcasters who aren't toeing the line. Good idea?"
Sunak grins inanely.
Phone call to BBC ...
.. And now this ...
It may have been a distraction tactic on their part to get Sunak bunging the French £500mn in return for being smiled at for a couple of hours off the front pages.
If they had any sense, yes. But I suspect that they thought paying half a billion - for what the right-wing press had been saying the French should have been doing all along, as a matter of absolute duty - would be some kind of public relations triumph.
I wonder how many times Sunak grinned inanely at Macron during the negotiations.
Today, we have learnt that Lefties are thick, predictable, stupid, herd-like, hyberbolic, surprisingly sensitive, entirely lacking in self-awareness, dumb, possess no sense of irony, hysterical, brainless, and enthusiastic sheep.
Actually, maybe we already knew that.
Did I mention they were idiots?
Anyway, my day beckons.
Happy frothing everyone.
Sounds like it's you that's losing it, yet again.
He'll tell you or me to fuck off or challenge us to a fight soon.
Which you richly deserved.
You drove two friends of mine off the site- @Charles and @Cyclefree - who I know in real life, and you've been personally abusive to me (repeatedly) for no reason other than the fact you dislike my politics.
I am sympathetic to the fact you have mental health issues - and I don't want anyone to suffer from that - but your needy behaviour where you are desperate to be both right and liked (coupled with nastiness and abuse on top) is totally unacceptable - and has real world impacts - and doesn't get a free pass from me for its impact on people I care about. You more than anyone should know that.
Sorry.
Reconsider your attitude and your life.
You can start by apologising and making amends.
He didn’t drive @Charles off the site. At least, the posts surrounding said departure gave a few other issues.
I don't think I've seen the British Right so antagonized as it now is over Gary Linekar. This is surely because they saw hatred of immigrants as their final touchstone - the issue they could rely upon as being sacred to both them and the lower orders. But now people involved in soccer - that most working class of sports - are starting to peel away from the issue. It's a terrifying prospect. British conservatism is becoming a movement without a cause.
That Alistair Campbell tweet is really on the boundary of insanity. Budget cuts to the BBC music department = Dachau and Auschwitz
Well, yes. Everyone has gone OTT on all this, but that possibly wins the biscuit.
On salaries, though, which of us is really comfortable with how people end up being paid? SeanT, for example, has mentioned the enormous earnings that he gets from books of debatable literary value. I've earned perhaps £400K over the years from translating legislative documents which I suspect almost nobody actually reads. Are we well-placed to judge how much MOTD presenters should get?
A fair point BUT we all pay Lineker’s salary via the compulsory license fee whereas - thank god - no one is obliged to buy some wretched pulp fiction by @SeanT or some pointless easily-done-by-AI translations from NPXMP
That’s the fundamental issue here. The BBC’s really awkward position as a “national broadcaster” which has to be neutral. And it really DOES
As I’ve said, I don’t think it’s a sustainable model any more. Which is a shame. As the BBC does a lot of good things and is often a fine advert for the UK in general
That Alistair Campbell tweet is really on the boundary of insanity. Budget cuts to the BBC music department = Dachau and Auschwitz
Well, yes. Everyone has gone OTT on all this, but that possibly wins the biscuit.
On salaries, though, which of us is really comfortable with how people end up being paid? SeanT, for example, has mentioned the enormous earnings that he gets from books of debatable literary value. I've earned perhaps £400K over the years from translating legislative documents which I suspect almost nobody actually reads. Are we well-placed to judge how much MOTD presenters should get?
A fair point BUT we all pay Lineker’s salary via the compulsory license fee whereas - thank god - no one is obliged to buy some wretched pulp fiction by @SeanT or some pointless easily-done-by-AI translations from NPXMP
That’s the fundamental issue here. The BBC’s really awkward position as a “national broadcaster” which has to be neutral. And it really DOES
As I’ve said, I don’t think it’s a sustainable model any more. Which is a shame. As the BBC does a lot of good things and is often a fine advert for the UK in general
It's really not compulsory to have a TV licence.
I don't have one. If the BBC were fulfilling the remit of a public service broadcaster, I would get one. But, it isn't.
I want to see Gary Lineker talking about Quantum Gravity, Iain Wright on the late novels of Charlotte Bronte, and so on.
There is way too much stuff about footy -- an overwhelming majority people are not interested in it.
Maybe it's time for a French-style programme on footy, in the way late-night BBC would have experimented in 1969.
French media-star Philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy and legendary German social theorist Habermas discuss the role of football in culture, surrounded by alcohol and leather armchairs, After-Dark style, with the expectation of fisticuffs. Joan Bakewell in attendance.
Today, we have learnt that Lefties are thick, predictable, stupid, herd-like, hyberbolic, surprisingly sensitive, entirely lacking in self-awareness, dumb, possess no sense of irony, hysterical, brainless, and enthusiastic sheep.
Actually, maybe we already knew that.
Did I mention they were idiots?
Anyway, my day beckons.
Happy frothing everyone.
Sounds like it's you that's losing it, yet again.
He'll tell you or me to fuck off or challenge us to a fight soon.
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Got those for my late dad's house. Even less sense as it's not even as much of an offence in Scotland as it is south of the border.
Though the BBC likes to keep such things in the dark, I believe Scotland has the highest refusal rate on the licence in the UK. I imagine discretion is the better part of valour north of Gretna, and the detector vans and associated bs are even more phantasmogoric.
I think I'm right in saying that there has never been a conviction on the evidence supplied by a detector van. Because they have never existed....
Im noticing a lot of people going crazy the last few years. Public figures with huge followings. The likes of Alastair Campbell Russell Brand etc Meantime conspiracy theries that would have been laughed at in 2019 now going mainstream.
Russell Brand is another good call for gone absolutely batshit crazy in middle age. I mean he was never exactly middle of the road kinda of guy, but I have on occasion wondered what he is blabbering on about that got him banned from doing live shows on YouTube and having to use Rumble to broadcast, and its proper mad shit (not exactly a million miles away from Alex Jones shtick that literally everything is a global one world government giant conspiracy).
Also look at Scott Adams, the Dilbert creator. I think a lot of the people have a particular deficiency for the effects of social media. They can easily get into rabbit holes, get riled up by people playing on their prejudices, and the constant inundation of content ends up destroying their critical thinking and they go off the deep end. Lockdown made it all worse as it was their only means of stimulation and it broke some people's minds.
Another good example. 5-6 years ago he used to make very interesting observations about the reasons behind the rise of Trumpism, while managing to retain a semblance of reasonableness, and he was actually spot on about a lot of his insights. I am trying to remember the podcast he did, but he laid out the "tricks" Trump was using (even if it was subconscious) and why given the situation in America they were working. Now his rambling about political / social situation has descended into totally mental (but the cartoons are still good).
The funny thing is you can just imagine the kind of discussion that took place.
"Prime Minister, in line with your cunning plan of getting tough with migrants to win back the racist vote, let's really get the BBC to crack the whip against broadcasters who aren't toeing the line. Good idea?"
Sunak grins inanely.
Phone call to BBC ...
.. And now this ...
It may have been a distraction tactic on their part to get Sunak bunging the French £500mn in return for being smiled at for a couple of hours off the front pages.
If they had any sense, yes. But I suspect that they thought paying half a billion - for what the right-wing press had been saying the French should have been doing all along, as a matter of absolute duty - would be some kind of public relations triumph.
I wonder how many times Sunak grinned inanely at Macron during the negotiations.
Haven't seen any PB Tories quoting Kipling: not that I think it is modern Danegeld, but some folk sure will:
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation, For fear they should succumb and go astray; So when you are requested to pay up or be molested, You will find it better policy to say: –
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that plays it is lost!"
This could be the moment that the Tories lost the culture war.
The Conservatives will be delighted with the entire episode. The more time's wasted hyperventilating over the fate of an ex-footballer's media career, the less time's spent discussing the fact that their latest get tough approach to the boat people will utterly fail to stop them, in the same fashion as all previous efforts.
Blanket deportations will be defeated in the courts and almost everyone turning up in a dinghy will end up staying forever, and Sunak and Braverman both know it. It's all just for show.
I wonder if there were people waiting in line to be gassed at Treblinka who thought “this is easily as bad as the time the BBC cut its funding on symphony orchestras by 15%”
The BBC is worse than the Nazis. At least there was a classical orchestra in Auschwitz:
First they came for the Jews, and gassed them all, and I said nothing
Then they came for the asylum seekers, and said mean things, and I said nothing
Then they came for the BBC Singers and that really got my goat
Has anyone heard from the Cliff Adams Singers lately? ‘Sing Something Simple’ used to come on after the Top 40 when Radio 1 shared its FM band with Radio 2. Reminded me I had to go back to school in the AM. Hated it. A similarly disgruntled Gen Xer probably did for them.
Gassed, apparently.
I know. Hard to believe. Not just one of them either. They gassed every single Cliff Adams Singer, just like that - and then they burned all their LPs as “degenerate art”
They actually asked the Tory minister how they could justify this. He said it was “The Vinyl Solution”
Look, I’m not saying necessarily that I agree with the genocidal elimination of the entirety of the Cliff Adams Singers, I’m just saying that we have to look at the context of the times before casting judgement on the perpetrators, who were in all likelihood only following the orders of their superiors at Radio 1.
I believe many of them died from disease and food shortages rather than from any particular actions of the authorities who had relocated them for their own safety, and in any case far fewer of them died than is commonly accepted. In fact David Irving is writing a book on this.
Comments
On salaries, though, which of us is really comfortable with how people end up being paid? SeanT, for example, has mentioned the enormous earnings that he gets from books of debatable literary value. I've earned perhaps £400K over the years from translating legislative documents which I suspect almost nobody actually reads. Are we well-placed to judge how much MOTD presenters should get?
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1231543272943898626
John Reid – As Home Secretary whipped up anger against ‘foreigners who come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits’ (direct quote)
David Blunkett – as Home Secretary told British Asians they should speak English in their own homes
Charles Clarke – As Education Secretary said the state should not fund subjects like history and that ‘universities exist to enable the British economy’
Tony Blair – Blamed a spate of murders on ‘black’ culture that lacked ‘discipline’ and said people blaming poverty were being ‘politically correct’
David Blunkett – Brought in bill to cut benefits for asylum seekers and then take their children away into care once they become destitute
David Blunkett – As Home Secretary unveiled plans to force failed asylum to do unwaged work in exchange for “basic subsistence” if their claims were rejected
David Blunkett – Said he had ‘no sympathy’ with asylum seekers from Kosovo and Afghanistan arriving in Britain and said they should ‘go home’
David Blunkett – Suggested asylum seekers should be electronically tagged and tracked by satellite like criminals
Phil Woolas – As immigration minister, attacked charities and lawyers that helped refugees stay in the UK and accused them of being an ‘industry’ with a ‘vested interest’
The earlier BBC management was largely indifferent to its past, but the 1990's one was actively hostile not only to the older programmes but the older and troublesome programme makers or eccentrics, as were a lot of private organisations at this time, too. Organisations like McKinseys, that Birt brought in, laid down the rationalising blueprint at the time.
Latest (from the BBC, funnily enough):
"Match of the Day pundit Ian Wright has said he'll quit the BBC if it "gets rid" of Lineker."If they get rid of Gary Lineker, I'm out, I'm gone, I'm not staying there," he said on the latest edition of his podcast Wrighty's House"
But surely he should be sacked anyway, for saying something not approved by the government BBC?
One thing you notice when canvassing is the sheer number of houses that have a notice telling TV Licence enforcement officers have had their implied right to enter a property withdrawn.
Heaven forbid anyone should suggest the BBC licence fee enforcement had overtones of 30's Germany...
Some BBC managers embraced their past output. Guys like Alan Yentob. He also pushed some stuff on BBC2.
That’s the fundamental issue here. The BBC’s really awkward position as a “national broadcaster” which has to be neutral. And it really DOES
As I’ve said, I don’t think it’s a sustainable model any more. Which is a shame. As the BBC does a lot of good things and is often a fine advert for the UK in general
If you simply say no thank you, I don't want to talk to you, it is basically impossible for warrants to be issued because there is no basis at all that one is required.
Crudely put, the BBC has decided that paying Gary Lineker a fortune and, for that matter, maintaining football rights full stop, are greater priorities for it than providing any meaningful local radio service in England (outside of bloody London, as per,) or continuing to employ a chorus of classical singers. One logically assumes that a lot more people give a toss about football than local radio or choral singing, so the former gets a decent share of a shrinking pot of money and the latter doesn't.
It's ultimately all about money: the more public grumbling about the Beeb offering nothing that put upon licence fee payers are interested in, the more precarious the position of its main source of funding, of course.
The likes of
Alastair Campbell
Russell Brand etc
Meantime conspiracy theries that would have been laughed at in 2019 now going mainstream.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Orchestra_of_Auschwitz
What is also interesting is that even those caught out, the fines handed out average around one years worth of tv licence fee. Those that end up with much worse are either people who then decide to take a stand or can't actually afford it.
I really hope that was meant ironically.
Jeremy Clarkson called for striking workers to be shot in front of their families.
Continued to present Top Gear for 5 years.
Gary Lineker criticises government proposals on refugees.
Taken off air after 3 days.
Free speech brigade?
Attributed to De Gaulle.
That's all.
Striking BBC presenters proving the point that they operate in a left-wing echo chamber. They didn’t give a damn about free speech when it came to lockdown harms or the vaccine injured or JK Rowling. In fact, they openly campaigned to shut down those opposing views as “dangerous”
11:05 AM · Mar 11, 2023
·
19.1K
Views
https://twitter.com/danwootton/status/1634510786469961736?s=20
No - like everyone, the assumption is National Socialists. Because thats what he meant.
Then they came for the asylum seekers, and said mean things, and I said nothing
Then they came for the BBC Singers and that really got my goat
Tucker Carlson has shown videos he says proves Jan6 is a lie...expertly riling up middle america.
I therefore remain skeptical
'In 2014, a householder invoiced TV Licensing £40 as a 'processing fee' for 'opening, reading and filing' a TV Licensing letter. Because TV Licensing did not pay the charge, the householder took the claim to the County Court, eventually winning the case and receiving the fee plus other costs incurred.[125]'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Licence_fee_enforcement
I want to see Gary Lineker talking about Quantum Gravity, Iain Wright on the late novels of Charlotte Bronte, and so on.
There is way too much stuff about footy -- an overwhelming majority people are not interested in it.
Site was shut down and that's that.
I know. Hard to believe. Not just one of them either. They gassed every single Cliff Adams Singer, just like that - and then they burned all their LPs as “degenerate art”
They actually asked the Tory minister how they could justify this. He said it was “The Vinyl Solution”
The worse that can happen here is that he gets banned.
In real life you can get in a fight, lose your job, break up your family.
Edit: apparently such emissions are common. There is the story of ISTR a RAF prisoner in WW2 who told the Germans that their submarine's radar detectors or something were emitting stuff which the RAF was homing in on - purely as a complete lie to stop them bothering him. But when they tested it turned out to be true that the sets were emitting, cue complete shut down and a great help for the RAF/RN while the Germans sorted something out.
Campbell appears to have gone down a rabbit hole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr7hg7zDOQk
French media-star Philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy and legendary German social theorist Habermas discuss the role of football in culture, surrounded by alcohol and leather armchairs, After-Dark style, with the expectation of fisticuffs.
Joan Bakewell in attendance.
You drove two friends of mine off the site- @Charles and @Cyclefree - who I know in real life, and you've been personally abusive to me (repeatedly) for no reason other than the fact you dislike my politics.
I am sympathetic to the fact you have mental health issues - and I don't want anyone to suffer from that - but your needy behaviour where you are desperate to be both right and liked (coupled with nastiness and abuse on top) is totally unacceptable - and has real world impacts - and doesn't get a free pass from me for its impact on people I care about. You more than anyone should know that.
Sorry.
Reconsider your attitude and your life.
You can start by apologising and making amends.
I wonder how many times Sunak grinned inanely at Macron during the negotiations.
Watch a TV behind thick curtains and with the lights on.
Or buy a licence, of course. Which I still do. Well, somebody has to keep Garry Lineker in gold bars.
Although its days may be limited. With the very few series I watch on "live" TV, it would be cheaper to buy the series I want.
Post the acquisition of Starlink, I have been enjoying various "Walter Presents" on the computer.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: –
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"
Blanket deportations will be defeated in the courts and almost everyone turning up in a dinghy will end up staying forever, and Sunak and Braverman both know it. It's all just for show.