Match of the Day fiasco

[flamingpig0]

All this reminds me that back in the eighties I decided to abandon politics and spend a more productive life with wargaming, sci-fi B movies and "alternative" music. I don't think I made the wrong choice.

[fsn]

At £13.25 per month the BBC license fee is also actually pretty good value - compared to the commercial options available .

Really? Interested in what you watch. Just looked at today's BBC1 schedule: News, cooking, football, news, rugby, antiques, football, news, football, brainless quiz show, Casualty (series 37), Not Going Out (series 10), news, Football, scary film.

If you're not into sport, there's not a lot of innovative, interesting programming there.

What about BBC2 ... but let's take Monday to avoid the weekend: tourism, antiques, tourism, tourism, news, politics, game shows, cooking, cooking, houses, antiques, Richard Osman's House of Games, cooking whilst touring, book club, real life, Mastermind, University Challenge, real life, comedy-ish, news, history/travel (part 1 of 2), tourism, Dragons' Den (series 20), can't be bothered.

Again, thin fare for me. In two days there is about 1 hour of programming I am even mildly interested in.

The BBC's mission is defined by​ ​Royal Charter​: "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which ​inform, educate ​and ​entertain​."

Leaving aside impartial, what is high-quality is not distinctive, and what is distinctive is not high quality. I gave up my licence a few years ago because I did not feel the BBC offered me much for my £13.25.

What has this to do with Lineker? I go back to my original point and suggest he be removed and replaced with  a cheaper alternative. The money could be better used to uphold the mission.

 

[Big Insect]

Are the contract details available anywhere online for us to have a look at?  I've not seen anyone from the BBC state that he's breached a contract, only that his Tweet falls into this grey area of the impartiality rules, so there doesn't seem to be any defined legal issue here.  The impartiality section of their editorial guidelines specifically states that any political opinion restrictions only apply to their news and politics teams.

That I don't know Leon - so a fair point - it is raised in the wider media that he was not supposed to make impartial comments but that might all be media hype & speculation of course 

[Big Insect]

Really? Interested in what you watch. Just looked at today's BBC1 schedule: News, cooking, football, news, rugby, antiques, football, news, football, brainless quiz show, Casualty (series 37), Not Going Out (series 10), news, Football, scary film.

If you're not into sport, there's not a lot of innovative, interesting programming there.

What about BBC2 ... but let's take Monday to avoid the weekend: tourism, antiques, tourism, tourism, news, politics, game shows, cooking, cooking, houses, antiques, Richard Osman's House of Games, cooking whilst touring, book club, real life, Mastermind, University Challenge, real life, comedy-ish, news, history/travel (part 1 of 2), tourism, Dragons' Den (series 20), can't be bothered.

Again, thin fare for me. In two days there is about 1 hour of programming I am even mildly interested in.

The BBC's mission is defined by​ ​Royal Charter​: "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which ​inform, educate ​and ​entertain​."

Leaving aside impartial, what is high-quality is not distinctive, and what is distinctive is not high quality. I gave up my licence a few years ago because I did not feel the BBC offered me much for my £13.25.

What has this to do with Lineker? I go back to my original point and suggest he be removed and replaced with  a cheaper alternative. The money could be better used to uphold the mission.
 

I am very selective about what I watch (mainly News, Current Affairs, Wildlife or History - the occasional good bit of police/crime drama) and TBF what I have seen of the likes of Sky or even Netflix or Amazon (both of which I subscribe to) or Disney is a plethora of films (many old or with Amazon - very much 'B' lists) and the very occasional good entertainment series.

And of course today (a Saturday) is pretty much all about Sport on any and all channels - as that is what caters for the masses! I am not a sports fan.

I just think we (as a society) need to be really careful not to throw the baby out with the bath-water regarding the BBC. Look at the total mess that privatization has made of our utilities, trains and the post-office.

[flamingpig0]

The problem with the BBC is that it  combines hard right pro-gov't news and current affairs with earnest inept overly woke  drama. Almost as if it is calculated to have something to alienate everybody.

[hammurabi70]

I just think we (as a society) need to be really careful not to throw the baby out with the bath-water regarding the BBC. Look at the total mess that privatization has made of our utilities, trains and the post-office.

I would not describe it as a total mess.  That there is room for improvement is undoubtedly the case but it has also delivered some very helpful reforms.

Alan Sugar spent a whole election campaign telling people not to vote for Labour, are the BBC going to muzzle a Lord (!) just as a new series of the Apprentice is about to start?  Andrew Neil doesn't work there anymore but spent most of the last few years of his time at the BBC posting forthright political opinions on Twitter, would they have had the strength to shut him down?

Is Lord Sugar an employee of the BBC?  The BBC can decline to buy programmes from producers if they feel it inappropriate.

[Leon]

Is Lord Sugar an employee of the BBC?  The BBC can decline to buy programmes from producers if they feel it inappropriate.

He's not an employee, The Apprentice is produced by a separate company and bought by the BBC as far as I know.  Gary Lineker isn't a BBC employee either, he's a freelance broadcaster so is hired/paid for his services through his own production company I believe.  It's similar positions but Lineker is contracted directly so there's an argument that he should be held to a different standard.  It's a similar case with a lot of their presenters, Clarkson was always paid through his own company when he was doing Top Gear.

[flamingpig0]

It has been suggested that David Baddiel could take over MotD but do it as Ian Wright

[John Cook]

Sugar is also a member of the House of Lords and has been since 2009, initially a Labour peer but crossbench since 2017 when he left the party.  I don't see how somebody who is a member of Parliament could be stopped from making political statements.  It is, after all, part of the job is it not? 

[flamingpig0]

Sugar is also a member of the House of Lords and has been since 2009, initially a Labour peer but crossbench since 2017 when he left the party.  I don't see how somebody who is a member of Parliament could be stopped from making political statements.  It is, after all, part of the job is it not?

Perhaps he could resign from his BBC job, as it is clearly incompatible with his role as a political figure?

Just an idea

[flamingpig0]

People may find this from Michael Rosen of interest

[fsn]

I'm very bored with this now, but I would point out the difference between for example, declaring people born in the country, or those who have taken legal routes into the country and those who have used illegal methods to enter the country. 

Sort of in the name isn't it?

Shamima Begum rejected the country and joined a terrorist organisation (I do think she should be let back in btw); Windrush is as far as I can see it a massive c**k-up and failure of process; everybody costs something - that is why we pay taxes. The "Fremdmoral" is a poor comparison. I suspect the poor illegal miogrant is given a bag and told to take it across. Certainly that is what happens on the US-Mexico border.

As for "culture war", I go back to my "mote in the eye" comparison.

All in all a pretty poor reach by Mr Rosen.

 

[John Cook]

All in all a pretty poor reach by Mr Rosen.
 

Yes, it is and I agree that it is getting tediously repetitive.  Somebody without Rosen's hard-left credentials would have been less obvious.    I often listen to Rosen's 'Word of Mouth' on Radio 4 of an evening when I'm painting figures, when my wife is watching some ghastly programme on the TV. 
Rosen's an interesting person to listen to, and he has some equally interesting guests on his programme, but I do so in the knowledge that he is a hard-left activist so when he says stuff like this I'm reminded of Mandy Rice Davies, '"Well he would, wouldn't he?"' 
Rosen's parents were Communists and by his own admission their politics were a significant influence on him.  Rosen was sacked from the BBC decades ago for views that were even too far to the left for them and has been free lance ever since.   
He is a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn who he described as "a beacon of hope in the struggle against emergent far-right nationalism, xenophobia and racism in much of the democratic world". 
One might as well invoke Tommy Robinson, or any other hard-right activist, in an attempt to demonstrate the opposite view.

[Gwydion]

Sort of in the name isn't it?

It is - the problem is what does it mean? What is the legal definition of 'illegal immigrant'?

According to Oxford University's Migration Observatory (not to be confused with Migration Watch, a horse of a very different colour):

In the UK, there is no single legal or accepted definition of an 'irregular migrant', also known as an 'unauthorised', 'undocumented', 'non-registered', or 'illegal' immigrant

Mishael Rosen probably reaches too easily for the word 'Nazi' in my view. Lineker's critics like this and inserted it themselves into his statement because it allows the spoken or unspoken 'Godwin's Law' sneer to be aired regardless of whether the terminology is appropriate or not, in an attempt to undermine his case.
Having said that you will unsurprised that I agree wholeheartedly with Rosen that the general language and  climate in 1930s Germany exhibited some uncanny parallels with rhetoric in use in the UK today.

[Leon]

...or those who have taken legal routes into the country and those who have used illegal methods to enter the country. 

I think that's the bit that gets confused in the media and deliberately misconstrued by government.  Most of the people in the small boats are coming from countries with no process in place for them to make a claim for asylum, and the government has avoided setting up any processing centres for them to do so on continental Europe. 

So lacking any legal route to do it, they're obviously taking the only option available to them and crossing the channel.  As long as they declare themselves when they get here, I don't think that's classed as illegal entry for asylum?  Economic migrants are different process entirely though.

That's what frustrates me about the whole thing.  We need to stop people risking their lives and giving their life savings to people smugglers to make these crossings, but putting legislation in place that targets them rather than those who facilitate their travel, just seems the wrong approach to me. 

It's the same as the Rwanda scheme, another distraction method that wastes time and resources.  It's got a maximum of 200 people on the initial agreement and for each immigrant we deport there we're taking one in exchange, so the whole policy has got a net result of zero.