Match ⚽ of the Day ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh sorry. Am I meant to be sad about kickie-ball on TV?
I'm sure there are other ex-footballers who could quite easily provide an erudite commentary on the goings on, without necessarily causing a ruckus in their off-air antics.
Quote;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh sorry. Am I meant to be sad about kickie-ball on TV?
I'm sure there are other ex-footballers who could quite easily provide an erudite commentary on the goings on, without necessarily causing a ruckus in their off-air antics.
But why should his 'off-air antics' be an issue? He is a free lance, his comments did not use inflammatory language, and he expressed a perfectly respectable opinion which, while not shared by all, would be shared by many. There was no reason why anyone should have assumed this was the opinion of the BBC. This is a perfect example of a non story. "Independent journalist voices his own opinion in moderate language on social media".
Sorry, I agree that he has a right to his opinions and to express them.
He does seem to have upset some people and apparently that's a bad thing. If he said the same sort of thing whilst on MOTD then he'd be fair game, and I would also ask if there would be any support for him if he had tweeted "keep them out", "JK Rowling is right", "all lives matter" or whatever other viewpoint you find most distasteful.
Bottom line: I don't really care.
My point is that he is replaceable. Get rid of Lineker, bring in a younger, less controversial, more charismatic personality and save £1m of BBC money. More people want to watch the footie than are acolytes of the great Leicester Crisp-Seller.
QuoteSorry, I agree that he has a right to his opinions and to express them.
He does seem to have upset some people and apparently that's a bad thing. If he said the same sort of thing whilst on MOTD then he'd be fair game, and I would also ask if there would be any support for him if he had tweeted "keep them out", "JK Rowling is right", "all lives matter" or whatever other viewpoint you find most distasteful.
Bottom line: I don't really care.
My point is that he is replaceable. Get rid of Lineker, bring in a younger, less controversial, more charismatic personality and save £1m of BBC money. More people want to watch the footie than are acolytes of the great Leicester Crisp-Seller.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fq4EeORWIAsIuEZ?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
QuoteBut why should his 'off-air antics' be an issue? He is a free lance, his comments did not use inflammatory language, and he expressed a perfectly respectable opinion which, while not shared by all, would be shared by many. There was no reason why anyone should have assumed this was the opinion of the BBC. This is a perfect example of a non story. "Independent journalist voices his own opinion in moderate language on social media".
I was hoping to see his on-air antics when Spurs actually win some silverware (Lineker being a Spurs player of legendry status) but as we'll now have to wait a few more months (in reality probably many more years going on Spurs current form :( ) for that to potentially happen I guess we won't get to see his reaction on TV (as a MOTD pundit anyway).
I bought a bag of Walker's crisps in solidarity
I note that there wasn't a similar outrage when he commented negatively on Corbyn; so I can only think this outrage is very convenient.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fqxdww-WwAAnEU_?format=jpg&name=small)
The thing about Lineker is that he's a serial offender. But, in my opinion, there are two issues with this latest example. The first is the generality of the guidelines the BBC imposes on its celebrities like Lineker. He signed a five-year contract in 2020 in which, apparently, he agreed to abide by the BBC's 'impartiality' guidelines. If he's was not happy with his employer's conditions, then he should not have signed the contract and found work somewhere else. The second one is the comparison to Nazi Germany in the 1930. There is, absolutely, no comparison in word or deed, between the present British government's policy on illegal immigration, and Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews, Gypsies and others. So, in that respect he was plain wrong and bound to give offence, and pretty dull to make such an analogy.
I can't really comment on his qualifications as a kick-ball commentator as I have no interest in the game, but it seems to me, that he gets paid far, far, too much and his salary might be better spent elsewhere until the licence-fee is abolished and the BBC has to make its own way without support from what is, in effect, another tax. That, of course, is another argument.
I think Gary was pretty spot on in what he said myself and I think the BBC have completely shot themselves in the foot with the furore that this has created. His comparison to 1930's German language when it comes to the dehumanisation and 'othering' of immigrants is clear to see, so much so that a Holocaust survivor said exactly the same thing to Braverman only a couple of months ago. She of course ignored it and carried on.
The thing that is most striking here is the hypocrisy of the BBC in their application of their rules in this instance. Why does Lineker get pulled from his presenting role on a football programme, but people like Alan Sugar and Jeremy Clarkson were able to say anything they liked whilst in equivalent 'freelancer' positions for the Beeb. Why was Andrew Neil allowed to tweet whatever he liked even while a presenter on a BBC political show? This was supposedly allowed at the time because he was speaking in his alternate role as chairman of the Spectator.
The only discernible difference is that those people were speaking in favour of government policy and Lineker is speaking out against it. And when you look at the people in charge of the BBC you can clearly see why this might be a problem for them. Unfortunately it's completely backfired on them and they were unprepared for this outcome.
If Lineker's statement was so wrong, why did every other football presenter, pundit and commentator join him in solidarity? Why did multiple football clubs put out statements that their players would not participate in post-match interviews for the BBC? And why hasn't Lineker seen any of this sponsors or affiliates drop him, as you'd expect if he had done something so controversial?
QuoteMy point is that he is replaceable. Get rid of Lineker, bring in a younger, less controversial, more charismatic personality and save £1m of BBC money. More people want to watch the footie than are acolytes of the great Leicester Crisp-Seller.
Just to reply to this point, unfortunately the reality there is that he's underpaid in terms of the market value of what he does. He could go to any other mainstream sports broadcaster and double/triple his salary overnight. That isn't to say that anyone deserves to earn that much, but just that in perspective to other media outlets he's not paid a lot. He does some work for other channels (BT Sport mainly) and I'd expect him to be getting a lot more per appearance there.
QuoteThe thing that is most striking here is the hypocrisy of the BBC in their application of their rules in this instance. Why does Lineker get pulled from his presenting role on a football programme, but people like Alan Sugar and Jeremy Clarkson were able to say anything they liked whilst in equivalent 'freelancer' positions for the Beeb. Why was Andrew Neil allowed to tweet whatever he liked even while a presenter on a BBC political show? This was supposedly allowed at the time because he was speaking in his alternate role as chairman of the Spectator.
This was the BBC response to a complaint about Andrew Neil's impartiality
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fq7QWhsXsAE9QM8?format=jpg&name=large)
I am not a fan of team sports so don't have an axe to grind. However, if football is"kick ball" wouldn't rugby be hand ball?
QuoteThe second one is the comparison to Nazi Germany in the 1930. There is, absolutely, no comparison in word or deed, between the present British government's policy on illegal immigration, and Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews, Gypsies and others. So, in that respect he was plain wrong and bound to give offence, and pretty dull to make such an analogy.
He would have been dull if he had. But he didn't make that analogy at all.
He said the language used was similar to that being used in Germany in the 1930s, not the treatment of Jews and Gypsies and the mentally ill and gay people and communists and Slavs etc etc.
His point of course being that careless acceptance of pejorative language about 'the other' has in the past led to actions that many (perhaps most?) of those endorsing that language by indifference would not have intended to flow from their failure to challenge it when it first arose.
As for 'he can be replaced' - well of course he can be, but the point is surely not whether he can be, but whether in a democracy he should be sacked by a supposedly independent state broadcaster apparently in hock to one political party, for posting his views off air in a personal capacity.
Hi
For what it's worth I think Leon's summary of the Gary Lineker situation above is, like Gary Lineker's original tweet, also 'spot on'.
Cheers Paul
QuoteFor what it's worth I think Leon's summary of the Gary Lineker situation above is, like Gary Lineker's original tweet, also 'spot on'.
Seconded except:
1. I hardly ever watch the BBC and never MOTD.
2. I don't look at social media much either except for Youtubes and facebooks wargaming related content
3. So as an outside observer and given rising problems of poverty and homelessness, earthquakes and wars - why is this even a news item? What other stuff is being "buried" under this media manufactured story about media?
I think we should be told. :d
Quote from: T13A on 13 March 2023, 09:32:54 AMFor what it's worth I think Leon's summary of the Gary Lineker situation above is, like Gary Lineker's original tweet, also 'spot on'.
Crawler! :P
I take the "turbulent priest" view. If the BBC replace Lineker with someone who only talks about football, they can save a fortune and not have to put up with the "bad" publicity every now and again. The great British public will watch the kickie-ball whoever is presenting.
I mean, I'm not going to stop buying from Pendraken just because Leon has expressed an opinion not related to 10mm figures.
It's all got rather silly.
Apparently MotD viewing figures were up 500K ;D
Wonder what the BBC will do when the highlights rights come up for tender again :-\
Quote from: Matt J on 13 March 2023, 12:53:29 PMApparently MotD viewing figures were up 500K ;D
Wonder what the BBC will do when the highlights rights come up for tender again :-\
Hopefully lose the bid - get it on Sky so I dona have to watch the tedious stuff.
QuoteCrawler! :P
I know which side by bread is buttered!
Cheers Paul
Hi
QuoteApparently MotD viewing figures were up 500K ;D
Actually they are putting that down to the 'car crash syndrome' (i.e. people like to watch a car crash).
Cheers Paul
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 13 March 2023, 02:38:49 AMI am not a fan of team sports so don't have an axe to grind. However, if football is"kick ball" wouldn't rugby be hand ball?
No, because the foot is used to kick the ball out of hand and for scoring goals. The game of Rugby Football has evolved since the 1820s but the use of the foot is still important. Hand ball is a completely different game.
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 13 March 2023, 02:36:50 AMThis was the BBC response to a complaint about Andrew Neil's impartiality
A strawman argument. Nobody has claimed that the BBC isn't hypocritical. The BBC is a crock in so many ways. But, I do seem to remember that Clarkson got fired for things he said, or did, none of which, as I remember, were political in nature, just objectionable. The thing about Lineker I object to is his allusion to Nazi Germany, which is ludicrous.
Clarkson's contract wasn't renewed because he thumped a colleague because he, Clarkson, arrived too late where they were staying to get something to eat. Nothing to do with his odious views.
Hats off to Lineker for saying what he did.
Quote from: John Cook on 13 March 2023, 03:23:48 PMA strawman argument. Nobody has claimed that the BBC isn't hypocritical. The BBC is a crock in so many ways. But, I do seem to remember that Clarkson got fired for things he said, or did, none of which, as I remember, were political in nature, just objectionable. The thing about Lineker I object to is his allusion to Nazi Germany, which is ludicrous.
I would suggest that "Nobody has claimed that the BBC isn't hypocritical" is much closer to a straw man argument. However, I suspect on that, as an so many issues, we will have to agree to differ.
Rather than Lineker, I think there is much more of a case for sacking Fiona Bruce after her defence of Johnson family domestic violence on the grounds of it being a "one off".
Ahem, I think this has more than drifted into politics. Something which we are not supposed to do on this forum. :-\
A very wise man once said
Quote13 May 2022, 18:50:51#21
I don't mind some politics as long as we keep things civil!
:D
Didn't somebody once say that everything is political? Be that as it may, BBC hypocrisy generally isn't an argument I've made. It was raised by somebody else way back in the thread. I haven't got an opinion on Bruce and I'm not familiar with what she said. As for Clarkson, it was indeed, inter alia, what he did, as I said. Assaulting a colleague was the final straw. But these are all strawmen arguments and have nothing to do with Lineker whose allusion to Nazi Germany was just as odious, as it was innacurate. There is so much wrong with the BBC that I could waste the rest of the evening on it, but this was about Lineker, a subject on which I'm done.
Quote from: Orcs on 13 March 2023, 06:33:24 PMAhem, I think this has more than drifted into politics. Something which we are not supposed to do on this forum. :-\
True
We can't risk this thread being closed because then the dead will walk the earth
Quote from: T13A on 13 March 2023, 09:32:54 AMHi
For what it's worth I think Leon's summary of the Gary Lineker situation above is, like Gary Lineker's original tweet, also 'spot on'.
Cheers Paul
And I think the absolute opposite.. Academic though as I haven't had a BBC poll tax certificate for over 23 years now.
Quote from: Gwydion on 13 March 2023, 02:52:21 AMHe would have been dull if he had. But he didn't make that analogy at all.
He said the language used was similar to that being used in Germany in the 1930s, not the treatment of Jews and Gypsies and the mentally ill and gay people and communists and Slavs etc etc.
His point of course being that careless acceptance of pejorative language about 'the other' has in the past led to actions that many (perhaps most?) of those endorsing that language by indifference would not have intended to flow from their failure to challenge it when it first arose.
I'm sorry but I'm afraid I can't let you get away with that. The abuse, together with other measures, including violence, terror and intimidation, were part and parcel of the Nazi's treatment of the Jews that culminated in the so-called Nuremberg Laws, the goal of which was to make German Jews leave Germany. The suggestion that the language used was somehow separate from the overall treatment of German Jews just doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny.
Whatever you might think of the UK Government's policy on illegal immigration, it does not involve any language, or anything else, that even approximates to the treatment of German Jews by the Nazi government in the 1930s.
The careless use of language was Lineker's alone and was both inaccurate and offensive.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
The "othering" of out groups is where it starts, the Nazi's may be an example of the extreme end to the process but they are far from the first, last or only example.
It's a bit late to speak out when the machetes are out or the gas chambers are in operation.
Well done Lineker.
First they came for the brexiteers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a brexiteer.
Then they came for the anti-vaxxers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an anti-vaxxer.
Then they came for the Christian, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not Christian.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
The "othering" of out groups is where it starts, the Communists may be an example of the extreme end to the process but they are far from the first, last or only example.
It's a bit late to speak out when the machetes are out or the gulags are in operation.
I post this not as a political statement, but as a thought experiment. Is Lineker not guilty of "othering"? Was David Lammy not "othering" when he called Tories "Nazis"? I watched a BBC producer yesterday describing people who disagreed with Lineker as "right wing hyenas".
I sit neither on the left nor the right. I sit in the middle and am saddened by both sides. They are equally guilty of the same low politics that they accuse the other of.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" - Matthew 7:3
Whilst I like a good debate, political or otherwise, can we please get back on topic please gentlemen? As someone has already stated, we come here for wargames chat etc. Thankyou.
I thought this bit was about deaths not wargaming - 'Non-Wargaming Discussion' :)
Re Lineker; 'othering' - no he made a humanitarian statement in favour of inclusivity not a political one.
Quote from: Gwydion on 15 March 2023, 09:27:53 AMI thought this bit was about deaths not wargaming - 'Non-Wargaming Discussion' :)
Re Lineker; 'othering' - no he made a humanitarian statement in favour of inclusivity not a political one.
I agree ... this is an inappropriate discussion for this thread - and probably for the Forum as a whole (IMHO)
Thanks
Mark
Quote from: Big Insect on 15 March 2023, 09:39:59 AMI agree ... this is an inappropriate discussion for this thread - and probably for the Forum as a whole (IMHO)
Thanks
Mark
No, it doesn't fit in this thread but whether we shouldn't discuss other stuff I'm not so sure. We ought to be able to discuss current affairs somewhere if we want to. Nobody has resorted to ad hominems on this one, we aren't politicians after all, and this forum is not TMP. We are better than that, are we not?
I think that is a fair summation of what I feel as well John. Thank you for stating it so succinctly.
How about discussing current affairs on a current affairs forum.
If one goes on Twitter one can take up the issue with Lineker Invictus himself. Or even, should they so wish, send abusive comments to his family
QuoteHow about discussing current affairs on a current affairs forum.
One would probably end up communicating with a wider demographic which I would argue is a good thing.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 15 March 2023, 10:31:46 AMHow about discussing current affairs on a current affairs forum.
It's a fair point. On the other hand there are opportunties on this forum to discuss topics outside wargaming, so why not current affairs too? It is not something we need to shy-away from I think.
I've split this discussion away from the Deaths thread.
I don't mind talking about things like this as long as we keep it civil. The wider issue for all of us, that's been highlighted by the Lineker row, is the increased influence that governments are trying to exert over all media channels, combined with this strange post-truth world we're starting to inhabit, all in an attempt to muddy the waters and make sure that the electorate can't distinguish truth from fiction. It's always happened to an extent but the age of the internet and instant distribution of information has ramped it up.
Here in the UK we're following the USA's lead in this, taking inspiration from channels like Fox News and launching our own versions in GB News and Talk TV. We've now got politicians presenting essentially political broadcasts on these channels in direct violation of Ofcom rules. Combine that with social media where anything goes and it's not great.
Whichever side of the political fence you sit on, we all need to look at things from different perspectives to see whether it's really an issue or simply a distraction from the real problems we're facing.
QuoteI'm sorry but I'm afraid I can't let you get away with that. The abuse, together with other measures, including violence, terror and intimidation, were part and parcel of the Nazi's treatment of the Jews that culminated in the so-called Nuremberg Laws, the goal of which was to make German Jews leave Germany. The suggestion that the language used was somehow separate from the overall treatment of German Jews just doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny.
Whatever you might think of the UK Government's policy on illegal immigration, it does not involve any language, or anything else, that even approximates to the treatment of German Jews by the Nazi government in the 1930s.
The careless use of language was Lineker's alone and was both inaccurate and offensive.
Nothing to get away with. Lineker was remarkably precise in his use of language, as was I.
As I said: he never equated the actions of the Government to
Quotethe treatment of German Jews by the Nazi government in the 1930s
He equated the rhetoric used by some about the current situation to the language used (Lineker never mentioned Nazis by the way) in 1930s Germany [and other parts of Europe as well - my interpolation].
I never for one second suggested 1930s language was separate from the treatment of Jews and others. I clearly stated that the language created the environment where such actions could be carried out, and that is why I feel Lineker was right to speak out. Better to stop it at the language stage before we end up doing things we will (or should) regret.
He was unclear whether he was criticising Government language or that of their more enthusiastic supporters. In either case I think he had a right to say it.
Quote from: Gwydion on 15 March 2023, 03:58:14 PMHe equated the rhetoric used by some about the current situation to the language used (Lineker never mentioned Nazis by the way) in 1930s Germany
So he meant ... ?
It's a bit like my previous quote being "from the book by those folk who like the bloke who was nailed to a cross".
Sorry, I'm teasing.
Quote from: fsn on 15 March 2023, 05:31:12 PMSo he meant ... ?
It's a bit like my previous quote being "from the book by those folk who like the bloke who was nailed to a cross".
Sorry, I'm teasing.
Quite so. Of course he mean't the Nazis, he didn't have to say so. They came to power in Germany in 1933 and nobody else had much of a voice if any. Who else did he he mean? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Weimar Republic.
And to highlight my point about the misinformation, Stoke MP Jonathan Gullis was interviewed by Channel 4 yesterday and said that he doesn't care about upsetting people, "...who want to call people up here racist bigots, Nazis, like Gary Lineker has done..."
For anyone who wants a good overview of this, I highly recommend you listen to the Media Show that was on Radio 4 this afternoon. Very informative IMHO.
Non-Nazi users of racist rhetoric in pre war Germany?
How about the Volkisch Movement? Predates the NSDAP by some decades but their 'Blood and Soil' Germanic movement laid many of the foundations of the growing hatred of 'foreign' influences on Germany. Carried on throughout the thirties and beyond.
The Thule Society? - similar but Hitler fell out with them and they officially ended in 1925 but their bile lived on through the thirties.
Hans Keller's Volk Nationalism and Third Europe?
Antisemitism was rife throughout many parts of German society which fell prey to myth making and economic fear. They weren't all Nazis by any means, but the language used allowed extreme measures to be accepted when the NSDAP turned rhetoric into action.
Quote from: Gwydion on 15 March 2023, 09:03:52 PMNon-Nazi users of racist rhetoric in pre war Germany?
How about the Volkisch Movement? Predates the NSDAP by some decades but their 'Blood and Soil' Germanic movement laid many of the foundations of the growing hatred of 'foreign' influences on Germany. Carried on throughout the thirties and beyond.
The Thule Society? - similar but Hitler fell out with them and they officially ended in 1925 but their bile lived on through the thirties.
Hans Keller's Volk Nationalism and Third Europe?
Antisemitism was rife throughout many parts of German society which fell prey to myth making and economic fear. They weren't all Nazis by any means, but the language used allowed extreme measures to be accepted when the NSDAP turned rhetoric into action.
Quits so.
This is from the DNVP the main German Conservative Party
"Only a strong German nationality that consciously preserves its nature and essence and keeps itself free of foreign influence can provide the foundation for a strong German state. For that reason we resist the undermining, un-German spirit in all forms, whether it stems from Jewish or other circles. We are emphatically opposed to the prevalence of Judaism in the government and public life, which has emerged ever more ominously since the revolution. The flow of foreigners across our borders is to be prohibited"
I see, so when Lineker talked about language used in Germany in the 1930s he was alluding to the Volkisch Movement, the Deutschnationale Volkspartei, The Thule Society, and Hans Keller. I'm glad we got that sorted out. ;D
Quote from: Leon on 15 March 2023, 05:47:35 PMAnd to highlight my point about the misinformation, Stoke MP Jonathan Gullis was interviewed by Channel 4 yesterday and said that he doesn't care about upsetting people, "...who want to call people up here racist bigots, Nazis, like Gary Lineker has done..."
A nasty piece of work who has a track record of making inflamatory comments like this one. Similarly, Lucy Powell the Shadow Culture Secretary called the disciplining of Lineker like something from Putin's Russia. Both are reflective of the standard of so many of our MPs these days.
I am disappointed that there isn't a party in the UK that I can generally agree with. I nod lightly to some Labour policies, and tip my hat to some Conservative viewpoints. Neither manages to convince me that they offer a competent, confident government. The rest seem to be an odd mix of unelectables of one sort or another, with a general drift to the extremes and an increasing void in the centre.
The general level of political discourse seems to be to label anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint as something nasty, and so can be comfortably dismissed without engaging in argument or debate.
Mayhap I am getting old, but I do think that the standard of politician has declined markedly. Perhaps we don't respect them as much as we used to, perhaps we are just cursed with a generation of non-entities, but I see nothing of much hope on either front bench.
It would be nice to have a reset, but to what? Proportional representation? Centrally funded political parties? Moving Parliament to Stafford? I don't know what will work. I see a gradual decline that no party has the policies or the guts to arrest.
I'm glad I'm old, and going to die soon, but I fear for my daughter and the following generations.
I made the original comment as a joke, four pages, wow
Quote from: fsn on 16 March 2023, 06:53:36 AM, and going to die soon,
Even though you are often mildly irritating, I really hope that isn't the case.
( not a joke- Live Long and Prosper FSN)
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 16 March 2023, 07:39:30 AMEven though you are often mildly irritating, I really hope that isn't the case.
( not a joke- Live Long and Prosper FSN)
Thank you. My father was one of 7 brothers, 6 of whom did not make it to 70. My brother died before he was 40. I am 62 this year and will be genuinely surprised to reach my 70th. I am not depressed by the prospect.
Thank you for your good wishes, and I apologise for being mildly irritating.
QuoteWhichever side of the political fence you sit on, we all need to look at things from different perspectives to see whether it's really an issue or simply a distraction from the real problems we're facing.
Totally agree. As I tried to hint earlier, I saw this whole thing as a clearly manufactured "big news" story deliberately designed to swamp media coverage of the actual Bill/Policy or any adult debate over legal and/or illegal immigration. If you look enough you can always find some comment by some celebrity that you can explode into a controversy.
PS thanks for your excellent service replacing the "headless children". Think how that one could have been twisted by social media users in support of the concept that all wargame manufacturers are evil and should be banned.
Quote from: DecemDave on 16 March 2023, 09:22:34 AMPS thanks for your excellent service replacing the "headless children". Think how that one could have been twisted by social media users in support of the concept that all wargame manufacturers are evil and should be banned.
We wargamers seem to be more tolerated these days than back in the 70s/early 80s
Surely the real issue with all of this, is that Lineker breached his contract with the BBC.
And regardless of whether you think what he said was right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate, it is his breach of contract that matters. And probably 99% of all UK employees, no matter how 'important' they might think they are (or otherwise) probably have similar wording (specifically about bringing their employer into disrepute) in their contractual T&Cs.
The issue is more about how the BBC then went about 'disciplining' Lineker for that breach.
If he'd been a Premier League footballer he'd have been docked X number of days pay - but still been expected to play - so as not to have impacted the clubs fans or their results - and that is probably where the BBC has failed to get its contract right with Lineker and all the other ex-sports star/player pundits. The Football clubs all learnt a long time ago that you cannot stop players making fools of themselves (fighting or exposing themselves in nightclubs or making daft statements etc) so they just fine them heavily (& admittedly will suspend them on occasions).
But Lineker believes he is powerful enough to breach his BBC contract (that he signed knowingly) with impunity.
Regardless of whether the BBC is bowing to pressure from the Government or the fans or Lineker and the other pundits, it's actually a failure of management nerve that has got the BBC into this mess.
But ... it is all a load of nonsense. Private Eye summed it up in their most recent addition ... "Shock Horror ... an article on page 4 of the BBC website that was actually not mentioning the BBC at all!!!" ;D ;D :D
The issue isn't about Lineker at all.
It's about the right of the individual to have a voice against the abuse of power.
Surrendering the right and the duty to criticise proposed breaches of natural justice to interpretations of contract law is a slippery slope to authoritarianism.
And I'm not sure you are right about the automatic actions of football clubs - was Marcus Rashford fined for criticising the Government over school meals provision?
I am continually surprised at the negative attitude people have towards the BBC. I think they got this one badly wrong initially but I'd rather have them than any of Murdoch's outlets or their clones.
Quote from: Gwydion on 16 March 2023, 11:21:07 AMI am continually surprised at the negative attitude people have towards the BBC. I think they got this one badly wrong initially but I'd rather have them than any of Murdoch's outlets or their clones.
Good shout there, I refuse to watch any SKY TV
Quote from: Big Insect on 16 March 2023, 10:35:25 AMSurely the real issue with all of this, is that Lineker breached his contract with the BBC.
Absolutely the point, which is consistently missed, it seems to me. His 2020 contract seems clear enough. He broke the BBC guidelines.
But there were two tweets, the first unsolicited one criticising the policy as 'beyond awful' and a second in reply to a challenge that he was 'out of order', saying that the language of the policy was 'not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the '30s'
It was that which added fuel to the fire because it is not accurate in the first place and in the second because introducing analogies to the holocaust to an argument, any way shape or form, always gets a reaction.
Now, whether he did that on purpose or was just thoughtless is unclear but a reaction it certainly got, from MPs on both sides of the political spectrum, much of which was gratuitous breast-beating by the usual suspects.
Missed in all of this are the pros and cons of the government's Bill itself and the issue of the criminal gangs illegally trafficking refugees and migrants into this country.
QuoteSurely the real issue with all of this, is that Lineker breached his contract with the BBC.
I think the wording of the contract was somewhat vague, as the spirit of it was more around ensuring political broadcasters and mouthpieces maintained "impartiality". A freelance sports presenter is a grey area as he was commenting in a personal capacity on an unrelated platform about his own views, not in any way the views of the BBC nor could they be mistaken as such.
Either way, the overreaction was unnecessary. His wording was mild, far milder than many other media platform pundits would use, let alone the general populace or the internet at large. Indeed, it was probably people taking what he said and blowing it way out of proportion to make a story out of it that made the whole thing so ridiculous.
I'm generally pro-BBC in principle, were they actually to present as impartial, though I find it interesting that the right constantly bash it for being too "woke" and the left bash it for being too conservative, so perhaps that's a balance of sorts. The cronyism with the government and their views in the upper echelons is a concerning trend, though one that is repeated across many industries and has likely always been there. Regardless, expressing personal views from a freelance perspective outside of your role and representation of a corporate entity should not be a punishable offence. Nor should questioning government policy or criticising the language used. The phrase "rhetoric reminiscent of" to me suggests he is referring to a trend towards stoking nationalist sentiments and blaming external forces for internal woes, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is a direct comparison to the policies and ideologies. Even if he did just mean it as an offhanded "just like the Nazis" remark...that's basically standard operating procedure for everything from tabloids to Twitter (well they're basically the same thing now) to brand anything disagreeable or authoritarian as Nazi or fascist, to the point it's largely lost its weight as a rhetoric tool. At least within internet circles, perhaps it still holds a bit of weight in "the mainstream". Plus he's a football pundit, not a political philosopher.
Of course from a government PR perspective, a storm in a teacup is much more entertaining and can distract people from discussing difficult, confusing and complicated things like actual immigration policies and the impact they might have.
Meanwhile, birthrates continue to fall, the population continues to age, the cost of living soars, fruit is left to rot in the fields for lack of workers, ecological disaster is largely ignored and long-term prospects look grimmer and grimmer, but at least we can sustain ourselves on a steady diet of outrage and self-delusion*. :-\
Probably the best summary I've seen/heard of the whole fiasco so far:
*I refer of course to the populace at large, not the esteemed gentlemen of this forum who have so far been reasonably civil and well-balanced... well, well-balanced for wargamers anyway! ;D
QuoteSurely the real issue with all of this, is that Lineker breached his contract with the BBC.
But has he though? The BBC suspended him for 'breaches of impartiality guidelines' in their own words, which is where the grey area is. The guidelines they are referencing only explicitly apply to presenters/employees within their news division so Lineker would be outside of that.
If they want to go down the route of enforcing a blanket ban on any political commentary, through any media, for all BBC employees and contractors, then they can do that but I think it would come back to bite them in the backside pretty quickly.
QuoteThe rest seem to be an odd mix of unelectables of one sort or another, with a general drift to the extremes and an increasing void in the centre.
I completely agree with that, the past 10 years have been so divisive. If we think back to the Cameron/Miliband election there wasn't really much between the two parties. Similar policies, similar presentation, etc. But by the Corbyn vs Johnson election both parties had moved to the far left/right and we had this no-mans land in the middle with a lot of 'homeless' voters.
I think the problem we're facing now is that Labour have moved back to that central ground while the Conservatives have pushed further to the right.
QuoteMayhap I am getting old, but I do think that the standard of politician has declined markedly. Perhaps we don't respect them as much as we used to, perhaps we are just cursed with a generation of non-entities, but I see nothing of much hope on either front bench.
Agree again, I don't think we're getting anywhere near the best people into our politics and to be honest why would they? Competent, effective leaders are going to work in the city or for some big corporation, they're going to run their own businesses, they're going to go abroad and earn a fortune. Why would you put yourself through the stress (and abuse these days) of going into politics? So we end up with a few people who genuinely want to make the country better but lack the contacts/power to ever achieve much, and a load of uber-wealthy/privileged who see themselves as a class above and are there to ensure that the rest of us don't threaten their status.
QuoteMissed in all of this are the pros and cons of the government's Bill itself and the issue of the criminal gangs illegally trafficking refugees and migrants into this country.
I don't think the Bill will achieve anything, it'll never get past any legal inspection and the Lords may well kick it back before it even gets to that point. But I don't think it's actually designed to achieve anything either. Tackling immigration has been a major policy of Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and now Sunak, with none of them making any headway on it, so you have to ask why that is?
There are loads of easier methods of dealing with it but they've never applied any of them. They could setup a processing centre in France, an option offered by the French government but turned down by us. They could setup centres anywhere in Europe for that matter and work within the migrant camps to provide information about how to apply for asylum rather than allowing vulnerable people to be exploited. The small boats are launching across a relatively small strip of French coastline so they could pay for drones, CCTV or extra foot patrols to catch the people smugglers. They could even look into the supply of the boats themselves. If we're getting dozens of boats per day coming across then why not look at the manufacturer and supply line to find out who's buying hundreds of small boats per month.
So I don't think they want to fix the issue at all, I think it's something they need to keep happening so that they can point their fingers and give the public something to blame in their lives. Immigration hasn't ruined our economy or driven down public services. It certainly hasn't caused energy prices to go up or driven the NHS to the point of collapse. But it's definitely an easy distraction to keep those things out of the news cycle.
QuoteI am disappointed that there isn't a party in the UK that I can generally agree with. I nod lightly to some Labour policies, and tip my hat to some Conservative viewpoints. Neither manages to convince me that they offer a competent, confident government. The rest seem to be an odd mix of unelectables of one sort or another, with a general drift to the extremes and an increasing void in the centre.
Agreed, it is a very depressing line up of apparently poor performers highlighted by some slightly better ones if you can work out which those are.
QuoteThe general level of political discourse seems to be to label anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint as something nasty, and so can be comfortably dismissed without engaging in argument or debate.
Has it not always been thus? Is it that modern social media allows a more concentrated form of bile?
QuoteMayhap I am getting old, but I do think that the standard of politician has declined markedly. Perhaps we don't respect them as much as we used to, perhaps we are just cursed with a generation of non-entities, but I see nothing of much hope on either front bench.
I think that after WWII there were many who had fought and survived the war and all had had to live through it, which gave them a different perspective. Seemingly the main aspect to the modern crop is private education, Oxbridge, political position ... with a sense of entitlement.
QuoteIt would be nice to have a reset, but to what? Proportional representation? Centrally funded political parties? Moving Parliament to Stafford? I don't know what will work. I see a gradual decline that no party has the policies or the guts to arrest.
Birmingham rather than Stafford? I would at least like us to start with reforming the
House of Lords, which is an achievable objective and I always mention this in my periodic emails to my MP.
QuoteI'm glad I'm old, and going to die soon, but I fear for my daughter and the following generations.
The upside to having had no children is a lower concern about events after one's demise.
QuoteIt's about the right of the individual to have a voice against the abuse of power.
Surrendering the right and the duty to criticise proposed breaches of natural justice to interpretations of contract law is a slippery slope to authoritarianism.
The whole fiasco is not one that bothers me but seems a variant of
Godwin's Law.
Lineker could resign his post so as to be able to speak freely. Surely the issue is about having a paid position that has certain restraints built into it. The claim is he could get a bigger pay check elsewhere so let him do that and speak as he wishes on political matters. The free market caters well enough for football and the BBC could concentrate on areas of entertainment and education that the free market fails to address because there is not enough money in it to make a profit.
I do wonder how many of the people attacking Lineker on social media would have voted for Hitler enabling parties in 1933. Assuming they had they been alive and German at the time.
Neither the pink nor blue Tories appeal, it seems the Lib Dems would sell their grannies to sit at the top table, I like much about the Greens but deplore their opposition to nuclear power, the extremes of left and right appal me, I am with the SNP on Scottish Independence but against their stance on nuclear deterrence (are they entirely unaware of events in the Ukraine?) so I am grateful that for strictly Scottish elections I am given, at least the appearance of, a more nuanced set of voting options by way of proportional representation.
I think membership of the upper chamber of the Westminster parliament should be decided in a similar manner to jury service with people selected at random to serve for a year.
By and large, and for all it's flaws, I think the BBC is an institution we should be proud of and should protect - mainly from the government of the day, whatever the colour of it's rosettes.
We have the interesting situation here (N. Ireland) of having been without a government more than we've had one the past few years because the children in the playground who thought they were always right and everyone else was wrong and would throw a hissy fit and storm off to prove it grew up and found the real world scary so moved into politics and ended up doing the same thing at the national level.
Voting for them becomes even more fraught given the enforced sectarian divisions inherent in the system severely limit the choices regardless of policy preferences. Then again, they end up collapsing after a few months anyway so what does it matter? They'll still get their salary and lots of pats on the back from their cabals of course.
I do think previous posters have hit the nail on the head, politics has become so lacking in glory and prestige that the only ones drawn to it are those who thrive on the power and pain it brings, anyone else with a modicum of sense will do far better in the private sector. I'm sure there's always been a fair share of that in the past, but I can't think of any in recent memory who have exactly draped themselves in glory. The bar has been lowered so far that Ithoriel's idea of governance by lottery probably wouldn't make things much worse! Reminds me a little of G.K. Chestertons The Napoleon of Notting Hill...
Is there a solution though? In the age of endless social media outrage and 24/7 news runs of the slightest whiff of controversy, who but the most thick-skinned, arrogant and unpleasant humans would subject themselves to national politics? I'd say more power to local and regional councils but then I'm reminded of the events of the famous 2021 Handforth Parish Council meeting...
Do the politicians we get reflect the society we have, one that has come to worship emotion over reason and an obsession with image over substance? Will younger generations revolt against that and steer things back to a less chaotic path, or just burn it all down around them?
I do wonder about these things, I'm generally an optimistic person and think humanity can, at its best, overcome any challenge, but I have a child growing up in this world and I do wonder what it will be like for him when he's my age as things seemed to be sliding ever downwards. Perhaps future historians will talk of the Late Information Age Collapse as we do the Bronze Age. I hope not...
QuoteBirmingham rather than Stafford?
What's wrong with Stafford?
QuoteBut by the Corbyn vs Johnson election both parties had moved to the far left/right and we had this no-mans land in the middle with a lot of 'homeless' voters. I think the problem we're facing now is that Labour have moved back to that central ground while the Conservatives have pushed further to the right.
True. For now. As a homeless voter I put Sir Kier aside from other politicians. Johnson, Sunak, Yousaf, Hunt, Dodds, Nandy et al all irritate me. Starmer I just find extremely boring. I tried to listen to his response to the budget and *yawn*.
Two that I think have potential are Kemi Badenoch and Rosena Allen-Khan. They at least have a fire in their belly and the appearance of sincerity.
My problem is that I shouldn't be basing my political decisions on personality, but on policy and I agree and disagree with both sides on different issues.
Quote from: fsn on 16 March 2023, 05:14:36 PMWhat's wrong with Stafford?
True. For now. As a homeless voter I put Sir Kier aside from other politicians. Johnson, Sunak, Yousaf, Hunt, Dodds, Nandy et al all irritate me. Starmer I just find extremely boring. I tried to listen to his response to the budget and *yawn*.
Two that I think have potential are Kemi Badenoch and Rosena Allen-Khan. They at least have a fire in their belly and the appearance of sincerity.
My problem is that I shouldn't be basing my political decisions on personality, but on policy and I agree and disagree with both sides on different issues.
I always misread Kemi Badenoch as Kermit Bad Enoch.
QuoteWhat's wrong with Stafford?
Infrastructure.
Quote from: mmcv on 16 March 2023, 02:52:07 PMI think the wording of the contract was somewhat vague....
I haven't seen the contract but his five-year 2020 contract included a £400,000 pay cut together with, apparently, an agreement to be 'more careful in his use of Twitter to push political causes'.
When Davie announced the deal he emphasised that all BBC staff would be bound by strict new social media guidelines and said that "Gary knows that he has responsibilities to the BBC in terms of his use of social media,".
I've been retired for 14 years but during my careers in the army and MoD I had to abide by rules concerning use of, ham radio before the internet era, and social media later. If you do not like the terms of a contract with your employer, then you find something else to do.
Be all that as it may, the BBC's handling of the affair has been a fiasco and the situation is now that Lineker and his fellow pundits seem to be a special case, and that cannot be a good thing.
Quote from: John Cook on 17 March 2023, 02:49:23 AMIf you do not like the terms of a contract with your employer, then you find something else to do.
Be all that as it may, the BBC's handling of the affair has been a fiasco and the situation is now that Lineker and his fellow pundits seem to be a special case, and that cannot be a good thing.
You don't seem to apply that argument to Alan Sugar, Andrew Neal or Clarkson.
"Birmingham rather than Stafford?"
Looking at international flood map projections, there will be no alternative to moving the capital, not just parliament, to Birmingham, probably next century, although the United Kingdom will have long ceased to exist by then.
65m sea level rise, when all the ice has melted, looks like:
(https://i.postimg.cc/zBVrvWXv/65m-sea-level-rise-England.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
As for this whole argy-bargy with some minor celeb, as someone else mentioned in the thread
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBcL18P7/distraction.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 17 March 2023, 07:51:21 AMYou don't seem to apply that argument to Alan Sugar, Andrew Neal or Clarkson.
Why should I? What have they got to do with Lineker? This thread is not about them. Strawman alert I think:-/
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 17 March 2023, 07:51:21 AMYou don't seem to apply that argument to Alan Sugar, Andrew Neal or Clarkson.
Whataboutery deflection of the first order...
Quote from: John Cook on 17 March 2023, 09:06:49 AMWhy should I? What have they got to do with Lineker? This thread is not about them. Strawman alert I think:-/
Quote from: John Cook on 17 March 2023, 09:06:49 AMWhy should I? What have they got to do with Lineker? This thread is not about them. Strawman alert I think:-/
"Lineker and his fellow pundits seem to be a special case, and that cannot be a good thing."
Who are you comparing them to?
'Whataboutery' in this case being the valid reference to the precedent set by the BBC of employing opiniated commentators who have a large politically slanted social media profile in key positions, one at least in a news and current affairs role. Unless something has happened of which I am unaware they were not sanctioned for their dual roles as major BBC stars and politically active commentators elsewhere.
Strawman alert? Really? Their treatment is at the heart of whether Lineker's comments were picked on because they were political or because they were critical of the Government.
Neil was hardly employed in the expectation that he would avoid political comment outside his BBC role, given he was Chair of Press Holdings imprint, The Spectator and ITP Media Group, and a prolific and opinionated Twitter user. Didn't see him carpeted for his views.
Clarkson was eventually sacked but as stated above for punching a producer not for his right wing opinions on social media.
Alan Sugar is hardly low profile on social media in contentious political (admittedly generally small 'p' issues).
Perhaps not definitive evidence of bias but fairly strong persuasive argument that Conservative Party shouting gets more attention of the BBC management.
QuoteInfrastructure.
You'd be amazed how quickly that got fixed if MPs had to meet there.
Quote from: Ben Waterhouse on 17 March 2023, 09:21:01 AMWhataboutery deflection of the first order...
"Lineker and his fellow pundits seem to be a special case, and that cannot be a good thing."
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 17 March 2023, 07:51:21 AMYou don't seem to apply that argument to Alan Sugar, Andrew Neal or Clarkson.
Quote from: John Cook on 17 March 2023, 09:06:49 AMWhy should I? What have they got to do with Lineker? This thread is not about them. Strawman alert I think:-/
Quote from: Ben Waterhouse on 17 March 2023, 09:21:01 AMWhataboutery deflection of the first order...
I think the point here is that if we're wanting the BBC to tighten up its guidelines and stop Gary Lineker from commenting on political issues then you have to carry that same rule out to all other BBC employees/contractors as well.
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?
There's a plethora of people associated with the BBC who regularly post personal opinion on their own social media channels and that's where the problem lies for me. I think there are certain voices that the BBC (and government) are happy to comment on politics, so they can't single out Lineker without it looking like an attempt to silence left-wing commentary.
This whole furore has kicked off over one person with one Tweet and the BBC over-reacted, in my view because of coercion from the top. But they didn't anticipate the response to their actions and they've backed themselves into a corner now.
Quote"Lineker and his fellow pundits seem to be a special case, and that cannot be a good thing."
Who are you comparing them to?
Nobody. Just the way the BBC has handled the matter and, just to set your mind at rest, I think all BBC employees and contractors, and everybody else, for that matter, who has a contract with any other entity whatsoever, anywhere, should abide by the terms of their respective contracts, whatever those terms might be, or do the other thing.
But, I reiterate, this thread was about Lineker, and his posts on Twitter, not the behaviour of any other BBC employees or contractors.
Quote from: Ben Waterhouse on 17 March 2023, 09:21:01 AMWhataboutery deflection of the first order...
It certainly is, in the context of this thread.
Quote from: Leon on 17 March 2023, 04:52:55 PMI think the point here is that if we're wanting the BBC to tighten up its guidelines and stop Gary Lineker from commenting on political issues then you have to carry that same rule out to all other BBC employees/contractors as well....
A fair point, Leon, but nowhere have I suggested that the BBC guidelines shouldn't apply to every BBC employee. I've tried to confine myself to the subject of the thread and avoid red herrings.
Quote from: Gwydion on 16 March 2023, 11:21:07 AMAnd I'm not sure you are right about the automatic actions of football clubs - was Marcus Rashford fined for criticising the Government over school meals provision?
Rashford wasn't sanctioned because his employers didn't see it as a matter that brought them into disrepute - quite the opposite. But if he'd made a blatantly racist remark or exposed himself in a nightclub, his employers might well have fined or sanctioned him and justifiably so.
The BBC has a statutory duty of impartiality. Lineker knew that. He signed a contract that stated that he would abide by that principle. He broke that contract. Regardless of whether you/me/anybody thinks he is right in what he said, the basic principle of law is that he is in breach of his contract and the BBC can (if it choses to do so) impose a sanction on him. The fact that the BBC totally ballsed it all up, just goes to show that Lineker probably knew he was in a strong position to be able to 'get away with it'.
There are cases - like the Clive Pontin Official Secret Act breach - where a court ruled that it was the 'Public Interest' defense that overruled even the Official Secrets Act - but I'd hardly think that Lineker's Tweat falls into that category.
It's in many ways just like the behavior of Isabel Oakeshott handing over Hancock's WhatsApp messages to the Telegraph. Another breach of contract & confidence, just because she knew she'd be able to get away with it (& would get paid handsomely in the process). And I am not defending Hancock - who was an idiot to trust Oakeshott - who had 'previous' for this sort of unscrupulous behavior, but are Hancock's WhatsApp messages really so 'insightful' as to justify a 'Public Interest' defense - personally I think not.
It all boils down to the fact that Lineker took advantage of the position the BBC currently (& IMHO unjustly) finds itself in, that it is under intense scrutiny from the Conservative Party in particular, that is under pressure from the other media channels to scrap the BBC and the license fee. I am a huge supporter of the BBC personally. It generally provides good/great programming and its News is also generally reliable. But I'd not want to be running it as a manager, not with the biased external pressures it is being put under (unnecessarily) IMHO.
At £13.25 per month the BBC license fee is also actually pretty good value - compared to the commercial options available .
Quote from: John Cook on 17 March 2023, 05:34:32 PMA fair point, Leon, but nowhere have I suggested that the BBC guidelines shouldn't apply to every BBC employee. I've tried to confine myself to the subject of the thread and avoid red herrings.
I totally get that but I think the wider impact has to be the overall point of the discussion. The current focus is on Lineker but the BBC can't start imposing different rules against him when there are many others who have done and still do the same thing.
Quote from: Big Insect on 17 March 2023, 09:33:03 PMThe BBC has a statutory duty of impartiality. Lineker knew that. He signed a contract that stated that he would abide by that principle. He broke that contract. Regardless of whether you/me/anybody thinks he is right in what he said, the basic principle of law is that he is in breach of his contract and the BBC can (if it choses to do so) impose a sanction on him.
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.
Quote from: John Cook on 17 March 2023, 05:12:57 PMNobody.
"Lineker and his fellow pundits seem to be a special case"
Linker can only be a special case though comparison with others within his category.
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 17 March 2023, 11:36:17 PM"Lineker and his fellow pundits seem to be a special case"
Linker can only be a special case though comparison with others within his category.
I disagree.
Quote from: Leon on 17 March 2023, 10:53:38 PMI totally get that but I think the wider impact has to be the overall point of the discussion. The current focus is on Lineker but the BBC can't start imposing different rules against him when there are many others who have done and still do the same thing.
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.
OK, that wasn't how I saw it. I took the view that it was about Lineker, his tweets and Match of the Day. Other than the Clarkson, who was sacked as I remember, I'm not familiar with other alleged transgressors so I can't comment. Lineker is a serial offender and if the BBC was serious they should have sacked him, and been done with it. Now the BBC just looks stupid. But I'm in danger of repeating myself.
The BBC Guidelines are on-line but I doubt Lineker's contract is.
.
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.
Quote from: Big Insect on 17 March 2023, 09:33:03 PMAt £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.
Quote from: Leon on 17 March 2023, 10:53:38 PMAre 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 :D
Quote from: fsn on 18 March 2023, 09:53:37 AMReally? 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.
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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Leon on 17 March 2023, 04:52:55 PMAlan 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.
Quote from: hammurabi70 on 19 March 2023, 01:04:48 AMIs 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.
It has been suggested that David Baddiel could take over MotD but do it as Ian Wright
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?
Quote from: John Cook on 19 March 2023, 02:22:28 AMSugar 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
People may find this from Michael Rosen of interest
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Frn32juX0AAMsxP?format=jpg&name=large)
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.
Quote from: fsn on 20 March 2023, 09:50:32 AMAll 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.
QuoteSort 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):
QuoteIn 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.
Quote from: fsn on 20 March 2023, 09:50:32 AM...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.
A better way of reducing 'economic migration' and doing some real good would be to invest in those countries and encourage the young people to stay and grow their economies instead of seeking pie in the sky here.
I don't mean giving them 'Aid', I mean investment in infrastructure and business to grow their economies, not exploitation by global corporations.
Then we could concentrate on welcoming asylum seekers and helping them, without the distraction of cheap shot comments about 'swarms' overwhelming Blighty.
QuoteYes, 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.
hmm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 21 March 2023, 04:21:14 AMhmm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)
Nonesense. I was merely pointing out Rosen's credentials, which are matters of fact, and his consequent bias, which some people might not be aware of. He is a poor witness whose views in this context are disingenuous claptrap and should be excluded from reasonable argument and not part of it, as should those of all extremists. Got to admire your determination but I thought it was obvious. It is best to be informed then one can 'aim-off'. Are we done yet?
I thought John's response to the Rosen piece was quite a good example of taking the man and not the ball :D .
It was a bit of a daft ad hominem.
Far easier to bluster about the politics of the man than address the facts.
Most people are surely aware of the politics of the author of that dangerous communist polemic 'We're Going On A Bear Hunt'?
Quote from: Gwydion on 21 March 2023, 01:46:16 PMI thought John's response to the Rosen piece was quite a good example of taking the man and not the ball :D .
It was a bit of a daft ad hominem.
Far easier to bluster about the politics of the man than address the facts.
Most people are surely aware of the politics of the author of that dangerous communist polemic 'We're Going On A Bear Hunt'?
I don't think it is really fair to compare Rosen to Tommy Robinson. I can't imagine him kicking a prone policeman in the face, something which Robinson was prosecuted for.
Let's keep things constructive guys, we've kept on topic nicely so far.
Can I suggest that we (you) suspend posting on this topic for a month so we can concentrate on toy soldiers.
Agreed. Well, until Donald Trump gets arrested anyway. :)
Quote from: fsn on 21 March 2023, 03:54:23 PMAgreed. Well, until Donald Trump gets arrested anyway. :)
See you tomorrow, then.
Quote from: Leon on 21 March 2023, 02:21:08 PMLet's keep things constructive guys, we've kept on topic nicely so far.
That would be good but it is difficult with all the red herrings. I have tried as best I can to restrict my posts to the Lineker fiasco. Lineker's relationship with the BBC is what it is, he either broke his 2020 contract or he didn't. His remarks about Germany in the 1930s were just wrong and it is that which I object to most.
I have to declare an interest. This link is the list of British people honoured by Yad Vashem as Righteous Among the Nations https://www.yadvashem.org/yv/pdf-drupal/united-kingdom.pdf. Ida and Louise Cook are my paternal aunts who rescued 26 Jewish families from Nazi Germany in the years prior to WW2. They were the first British people so honoured.
I received their posthumous British Hero of the Holocaust medals from the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2010. So I think I know something about Nazism.
I cringe when I see and hear people make flippant comparisons to Nazi Germany because usually they have no idea what they are talking about and to those who think that what the British government is doing at the moment is in any way comparable, all I can say is go and stand on the Juden Rampe at Auschwitz Birkenau.
I'm now done with this thread.