Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: rich1471 on March 10, 2023, 07:57:38 pm
-
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
-
BBC rules in full:
- Attenborough can't broadcast a show about UK nature loss.
- Lineker can't tweet criticising the government.
- Alan Sugar *can* tweet criticising strikes
.
- The BBC chair *can* be a Tory donor who didn't disclose he facilitated a loan to Boris Johnson.
-
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
What ! He compares this government to Nazi Germany where the hunted were making every effort to get out not in. This party won’t get my vote but come on he deserves everything he gets.
-
BBC rules in full:
- Attenborough can't broadcast a show about UK nature loss.
- Lineker can't tweet criticising the government.
- Alan Sugar *can* tweet criticising strikes
.
- The BBC chair *can* be a Tory donor who didn't disclose he facilitated a loan to Boris Johnson.
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
What ! He compares this government to Nazi Germany where the hunted were making every effort to get out not in. This party won’t get my vote but come on he deserves everything he gets.
No. He didn't.
-
BBC is wrong on this one imo. Even if your a gammon and pineapple type and love the nonsense Braverman comes out with what does it matter what Lineker says on his personal twitter feeds?
BBC needs to be politically neutral but it’s not like he did it on air or is a political correspondent. His personal opinions have no bearing on how he does his job like it might other roles.
Frankly the government at the moment are a shambles and the BBC seem to give them a easy ride.
-
Already a thread on off Topic, been there a while
-
BBC rules in full:
- Attenborough can't broadcast a show about UK nature loss.
- Lineker can't tweet criticising the government.
- Alan Sugar *can* tweet criticising strikes
.
- The BBC chair *can* be a Tory donor who didn't disclose he facilitated a loan to Boris Johnson.
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
What ! He compares this government to Nazi Germany where the hunted were making every effort to get out not in. This party won’t get my vote but come on he deserves everything he gets.
No. He didn't.
Yes. He did. He compared this government to Nazi Germany by likening the language used by ministers about asylum seekers to “that used by Germany in the 30s”
-
I’d love to be a fly on the wall when Richard Sharp, who facilitated an £800000 loan for a lying, corrupt prime minister, lectures Gary Lineker on BBC impartiality. This government makes my piss boil with their hypocrisy and bigotry. F*ck*ng scum the lot of them & the sooner they are wiped out the better!
That Braverman thing deserves a special place in hell along with Johnson! :evil: :evil:
-
BBC has been infiltrated by the tory Party. Talk TV v.2
-
BBC rules in full:
- Attenborough can't broadcast a show about UK nature loss.
- Lineker can't tweet criticising the government.
- Alan Sugar *can* tweet criticising strikes
.
- The BBC chair *can* be a Tory donor who didn't disclose he facilitated a loan to Boris Johnson.
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
What ! He compares this government to Nazi Germany where the hunted were making every effort to get out not in. This party won’t get my vote but come on he deserves everything he gets.
No. He didn't.
Yes. He did. He compared this government to Nazi Germany by likening the language used by ministers about asylum seekers to “that used by Germany in the 30s”
you can't deny the country is becoming a fascist dictatorial run country though, we should have seen that during covid when we was controlled into submission
-
BBC rules in full:
- Attenborough can't broadcast a show about UK nature loss.
- Lineker can't tweet criticising the government.
- Alan Sugar *can* tweet criticising strikes
.
- The BBC chair *can* be a Tory donor who didn't disclose he facilitated a loan to Boris Johnson.
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
What ! He compares this government to Nazi Germany where the hunted were making every effort to get out not in. This party won’t get my vote but come on he deserves everything he gets.
No. He didn't.
Yes. He did. He compared this government to Nazi Germany by likening the language used by ministers about asylum seekers to “that used by Germany in the 30s”
Compared the language used.
-
BBC rules in full:
- Attenborough can't broadcast a show about UK nature loss.
- Lineker can't tweet criticising the government.
- Alan Sugar *can* tweet criticising strikes
.
- The BBC chair *can* be a Tory donor who didn't disclose he facilitated a loan to Boris Johnson.
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
What ! He compares this government to Nazi Germany where the hunted were making every effort to get out not in. This party won’t get my vote but come on he deserves everything he gets.
No. He didn't.
Yes. He did. He compared this government to Nazi Germany by likening the language used by ministers about asylum seekers to “that used by Germany in the 30s”
Those asylum seekers in the 1930’s (quoted in the daily mail - check out Twitter) were German Jews which the tories of the time (aided by the daily mail) were campaigning against entering the country and taking our jobs/homes. Sound familiar? And we all know what happened next!!! :evil:
-
I’d love to be a fly in the wall when Richard Sharp, who facilitated an £800000 loan for a lying, corrupt prime minister, lectures Gary Lineker on BBC impartiality. This government makes my piss boil with their hypocrisy and bigotry. F*ck*ng scum the lot of them & the sooner they are wiped out the better!
That Braverman thing deserves a special place in hell along with Johnson! :evil: :evil:
Yes some very mean spirited people left in the government now. Can only hope to cling on to power by fuelling hate rather than delivering competent government.
Elections can’t come soon enough
-
BBC rules in full:
- Attenborough can't broadcast a show about UK nature loss.
- Lineker can't tweet criticising the government.
- Alan Sugar *can* tweet criticising strikes
.
- The BBC chair *can* be a Tory donor who didn't disclose he facilitated a loan to Boris Johnson.
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
What ! He compares this government to Nazi Germany where the hunted were making every effort to get out not in. This party won’t get my vote but come on he deserves everything he gets.
No. He didn't.
Yes. He did. He compared this government to Nazi Germany by likening the language used by ministers about asylum seekers to “that used by Germany in the 30s”
Those asylum seekers in the 1930’s (quoted in the daily mail - check out Twitter) were German Jews which the tories of the time (aided by the daily mail) were campaigning against entering the country and taking our jobs/homes. Sound familiar? And we all know what happened next!!! :evil:
So does that mean you agree that Lineker was comparing this country to Nazi Germany?
-
I’d love to be a fly in the wall when Richard Sharp, who facilitated an £800000 loan for a lying, corrupt prime minister, lectures Gary Lineker on BBC impartiality. This government makes my piss boil with their hypocrisy and bigotry. F*ck*ng scum the lot of them & the sooner they are wiped out the better!
That Braverman thing deserves a special place in hell along with Johnson! :evil: :evil:
Yes some very mean spirited people left in the government now. Can only hope to cling on to power by fuelling hate rather than delivering competent government.
Elections can’t come soon enough
divide and rule, turn everyone against each other. That's Tories for you
-
Perhaps we should look to the Jewish community for their reaction. Given the obvious and strong inference GL made in his tweet. This from the Jewish Chronicle today.
Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, wrote in a Times op-ed: “However passionately we feel about important and pressing issues of the day, it seems to me that comparing those current concerns to the almost unimaginable horrors of the Nazi period is wrong.”
Holocaust survivor Agnes Grunwald-Spier MBE had said the Match of the Day host “should be ashamed” for his tweet.
-
It’s fair to say his comments have attracted criticism from left and right. Even Yvette Cooper has said he was wrong to say what he did.
-
BBC rules in full:
- Attenborough can't broadcast a show about UK nature loss.
- Lineker can't tweet criticising the government.
- Alan Sugar *can* tweet criticising strikes
.
- The BBC chair *can* be a Tory donor who didn't disclose he facilitated a loan to Boris Johnson.
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
What ! He compares this government to Nazi Germany where the hunted were making every effort to get out not in. This party won’t get my vote but come on he deserves everything he gets.
No. He didn't.
Yes. He did. He compared this government to Nazi Germany by likening the language used by ministers about asylum seekers to “that used by Germany in the 30s”
Those asylum seekers in the 1930’s (quoted in the daily mail - check out Twitter) were German Jews which the tories of the time (aided by the daily mail) were campaigning against entering the country and taking our jobs/homes. Sound familiar? And we all know what happened next!!! :evil:
So does that mean you agree that Lineker was comparing this country to Nazi Germany?
Think your misrepresenting what was said.
Saying “language used is not dissimilar” is not comparing an entire country to the nazi’s.
And if you can’t read the context of what he’s saying then what’s the point of learning to read in the 1st place.
-
BBC rules in full:
- Attenborough can't broadcast a show about UK nature loss.
- Lineker can't tweet criticising the government.
- Alan Sugar *can* tweet criticising strikes
.
- The BBC chair *can* be a Tory donor who didn't disclose he facilitated a loan to Boris Johnson.
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
What ! He compares this government to Nazi Germany where the hunted were making every effort to get out not in. This party won’t get my vote but come on he deserves everything he gets.
No. He didn't.
Yes. He did. He compared this government to Nazi Germany by likening the language used by ministers about asylum seekers to “that used by Germany in the 30s”
Compared the language used.
Irrespective of what he compared it with, he compared this government to Nazi Germany.
-
It’s fair to say his comments have attracted criticism from left and right. Even Yvette Cooper has said he was wrong to say what he did.
And Emily Thornberry.
-
Just read about them cancelling the Attenborough show because tortes will get annoyed about him showing the impacts of wildlife in this country.
What the hell is going on at the BBC this isn’t impartial it’s censoring. Just report the situation and let people come to their own conclusions.
-
BBC rules in full:
- Attenborough can't broadcast a show about UK nature loss.
- Lineker can't tweet criticising the government.
- Alan Sugar *can* tweet criticising strikes
.
- The BBC chair *can* be a Tory donor who didn't disclose he facilitated a loan to Boris Johnson.
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
What ! He compares this government to Nazi Germany where the hunted were making every effort to get out not in. This party won’t get my vote but come on he deserves everything he gets.
No. He didn't.
Yes. He did. He compared this government to Nazi Germany by likening the language used by ministers about asylum seekers to “that used by Germany in the 30s”
Those asylum seekers in the 1930’s (quoted in the daily mail - check out Twitter) were German Jews which the tories of the time (aided by the daily mail) were campaigning against entering the country and taking our jobs/homes. Sound familiar? And we all know what happened next!!! :evil:
So does that mean you agree that Lineker was comparing this country to Nazi Germany?
Think your misrepresenting what was said.
Saying “language used is not dissimilar” is not comparing an entire country to the nazi’s.
And if you can’t read the context of what he’s saying then what’s the point of learning to read in the 1st place.
Good luck.
-
Funny, when Lineker tweeted 'bin Corbyn', the right wing press and the BBC were not bothered in the slightest but then again he's fair game isn't he.
We are on a very slippery slope.
-
It’s fair to say his comments have attracted criticism from left and right. Even Yvette Cooper has said he was wrong to say what he did.
And Emily Thornberry.
If old lardarse is criticising him, he must be on thin ice.
It's usually white van man flying the St George's flag that she has a go at.
-
MOTD will air tomorrow night without pundits or presenters.
Just football.
Nice.
Or perhaps they can get Tiziano Crudeli to do a voice over. Now that would be something.
-
BBC rules in full:
- Attenborough can't broadcast a show about UK nature loss.
- Lineker can't tweet criticising the government.
- Alan Sugar *can* tweet criticising strikes
.
- The BBC chair *can* be a Tory donor who didn't disclose he facilitated a loan to Boris Johnson.
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
What ! He compares this government to Nazi Germany where the hunted were making every effort to get out not in. This party won’t get my vote but come on he deserves everything he gets.
No. He didn't.
Yes. He did. He compared this government to Nazi Germany by likening the language used by ministers about asylum seekers to “that used by Germany in the 30s”
Those asylum seekers in the 1930’s (quoted in the daily mail - check out Twitter) were German Jews which the tories of the time (aided by the daily mail) were campaigning against entering the country and taking our jobs/homes. Sound familiar? And we all know what happened next!!! :evil:
So does that mean you agree that Lineker was comparing this country to Nazi Germany?
Think your misrepresenting what was said.
Saying “language used is not dissimilar” is not comparing an entire country to the nazi’s.
And if you can’t read the context of what he’s saying then what’s the point of learning to read in the 1st place.
Good luck.
I didn't misrepresent anything. I asked him if his comment meant he agreed that Lineker was comparing this country to Nazi Germany.
-
Saw a clip from sky sports news which sums it up. Andrew Neil, the BBC chairman, Jeremy Clarkson (when he worked there), Alan Sugar and many others can have political interests or work on opinion pieces which are very much not impartial and that’s all ok.
Tweet a mild criticism and it’s escalated like this. BBC encouraged Lineker to condemn the World Cup (rightly) but then it’s not ok to do it in our own country.
They’ve either been pressured into it by a government we all know is rotten or they’ve just scored a needless own goal. Hopefully all this brings it to a head and the genuine people at risk of contaminating the BBC with their political alignments are removed.
-
The BBC is The Ministry of Truth.
-
No great loss to MOTD can't stand Lineker.
Always fast forward when he's blabbering on
-
BBC rules in full:
- Attenborough can't broadcast a show about UK nature loss.
- Lineker can't tweet criticising the government.
- Alan Sugar *can* tweet criticising strikes
.
- The BBC chair *can* be a Tory donor who didn't disclose he facilitated a loan to Boris Johnson.
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
What ! He compares this government to Nazi Germany where the hunted were making every effort to get out not in. This party won’t get my vote but come on he deserves everything he gets.
No. He didn't.
Yes. He did. He compared this government to Nazi Germany by likening the language used by ministers about asylum seekers to “that used by Germany in the 30s”
Those asylum seekers in the 1930’s (quoted in the daily mail - check out Twitter) were German Jews which the tories of the time (aided by the daily mail) were campaigning against entering the country and taking our jobs/homes. Sound familiar? And we all know what happened next!!! :evil:
So does that mean you agree that Lineker was comparing this country to Nazi Germany?
Think your misrepresenting what was said.
Saying “language used is not dissimilar” is not comparing an entire country to the nazi’s.
And if you can’t read the context of what he’s saying then what’s the point of learning to read in the 1st place.
Good luck.
I didn't misrepresent anything. I asked him if his comment meant he agreed that Lineker was comparing this country to Nazi Germany.
He was comparing the language of certain politicians.
The will of the people. Betrayal of the nation if you resist.
You are being very silly, saying Lineker was comparing this country to Nazi Germany. Silly, but not surprising.
-
Saw a clip from sky sports news which sums it up. Andrew Neil, the BBC chairman, Jeremy Clarkson (when he worked there), Alan Sugar and many others can have political interests or work on opinion pieces which are very much not impartial and that’s all ok.
Tweet a mild criticism and it’s escalated like this. BBC encouraged Lineker to condemn the World Cup (rightly) but then it’s not ok to do it in our own country.
They’ve either been pressured into it by a government we all know is rotten or they’ve just scored a needless own goal. Hopefully all this brings it to a head and the genuine people at risk of contaminating the BBC with their political alignments are removed.
Precisely this.
Neill was the BBC's chief political interviewer while he ran a magazine that routinely published far right tropes and repeatedly trolled left wing people on Twitter. The BBC took zero action against him.
The BBC with its senior management cadre straight from the Tory party has become the state broadcaster of the Tory party. It's a long way back from here.
-
Are we to assume that those who criticise GL’s allusion to Nazi language otherwise oppose the Government’s policy? If they favour the policy, this surely colours their judgment. If they do not, can they provide a more appropriate form of words to to describe their own misgivings about what is proposed.
-
https://twitter.com/Wilsonfooty/status/1634333481302982656?t=xxj0wuOlFkJ8kBvuxOcSuQ&s=19
Commentators are pulling out.
https://twitter.com/talkSPORT/status/1634323772051275778?s=19
Players and managers considering not doing interview for the BBC.
Me thinks someone's made a bad decision at the BBC.
-
https://twitter.com/Wilsonfooty/status/1634333481302982656?t=xxj0wuOlFkJ8kBvuxOcSuQ&s=19
Commentators are pulling out.
https://twitter.com/talkSPORT/status/1634323772051275778?s=19
Players and managers considering not doing interview for the BBC.
Me thinks someone's made a bad decision at the BBC.
Someone on that first tweet thread has coined the phrase.
I'm Sportacus!
-
It wouldn’t surprise me if viewing figures increased on the back of this. I’m not sure I know of anyone that enjoys the b*llocks in between matches. Could save them a fortune.
-
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/conflicts-of-interest
There you go he broke BBC rules!
-
BBC is wrong on this one imo. Even if your a gammon and pineapple type and love the nonsense Braverman comes out with what does it matter what Lineker says on his personal twitter feeds?
BBC needs to be politically neutral but it’s not like he did it on air or is a political correspondent. His personal opinions have no bearing on how he does his job like it might other roles.
Frankly the government at the moment are a shambles and the BBC seem to give them a easy ride.
This is why he has been suspended
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/
and
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/conflicts-of-interest
He cannot tweet comments that break their impartiality and conflict of interests rules and not be expected to be disciplined. It is not a matter of free speech but a matter of breaking BBC rules. He can say what he like on twitter if he resigns from his BBC position.
-
I’d love to be a fly on the wall when Richard Sharp, who facilitated an £800000 loan for a lying, corrupt prime minister, lectures Gary Lineker on BBC impartiality. This government makes my piss boil with their hypocrisy and bigotry. F*ck*ng scum the lot of them & the sooner they are wiped out the better!
That Braverman thing deserves a special place in hell along with Johnson! :evil: :evil:
Sharp should be disciplined aswell for breaking BBC Conflict of Interest and Impartiality rules.
-
Saw a clip from sky sports news which sums it up. Andrew Neil, the BBC chairman, Jeremy Clarkson (when he worked there), Alan Sugar and many others can have political interests or work on opinion pieces which are very much not impartial and that’s all ok.
Tweet a mild criticism and it’s escalated like this. BBC encouraged Lineker to condemn the World Cup (rightly) but then it’s not ok to do it in our own country.
They’ve either been pressured into it by a government we all know is rotten or they’ve just scored a needless own goal. Hopefully all this brings it to a head and the genuine people at risk of contaminating the BBC with their political alignments are removed.
Precisely this.
Neill was the BBC's chief political interviewer while he ran a magazine that routinely published far right tropes and repeatedly trolled left wing people on Twitter. The BBC took zero action against him.
The BBC with its senior management cadre straight from the Tory party has become the state broadcaster of the Tory party. It's a long way back from here.
Is that the same state broadcaster that did everything in its power to prevent Brexit and then did all it could to hound out successive Tory leaders/ PM's over the last few years.
-
''If the BBC is politically neutral, how does it explain Andrew Neil?''
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/11/bbc-andrew-neil-media-politics
-
The left think the bbc is right wing and the right think it’s left wing. Always have done.
I don’t particularly like the bbc and couldn’t care less about Linekar but it must be doing something for balance to achieve this.
-
BBC rules in full:
- Attenborough can't broadcast a show about UK nature loss.
- Lineker can't tweet criticising the government.
- Alan Sugar *can* tweet criticising strikes
.
- The BBC chair *can* be a Tory donor who didn't disclose he facilitated a loan to Boris Johnson.
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
What ! He compares this government to Nazi Germany where the hunted were making every effort to get out not in. This party won’t get my vote but come on he deserves everything he gets.
No. He didn't.
Yes. He did. He compared this government to Nazi Germany by likening the language used by ministers about asylum seekers to “that used by Germany in the 30s”
Those asylum seekers in the 1930’s (quoted in the daily mail - check out Twitter) were German Jews which the tories of the time (aided by the daily mail) were campaigning against entering the country and taking our jobs/homes. Sound familiar? And we all know what happened next!!! :evil:
So does that mean you agree that Lineker was comparing this country to Nazi Germany?
Think your misrepresenting what was said.
Saying “language used is not dissimilar” is not comparing an entire country to the nazi’s.
And if you can’t read the context of what he’s saying then what’s the point of learning to read in the 1st place.
Good luck.
I didn't misrepresent anything. I asked him if his comment meant he agreed that Lineker was comparing this country to Nazi Germany.
He was comparing the language of certain politicians.
The will of the people. Betrayal of the nation if you resist.
You are being very silly, saying Lineker was comparing this country to Nazi Germany. Silly, but not surprising.
Why did he mention Germany in the '30s if he wasn't comparing this government to Germany in the '30s?
By the way, your use of insults is just a clear indication of when you run out of anything constructive to say in defence of your argument. You really should learn to play your cards closer to your chest.
-
The left think the bbc is right wing and the right think it’s left wing. Always have done.
I don’t particularly like the bbc and couldn’t care less about Linekar but it must be doing something for balance to achieve this.
This may be the most important discussion in the UK atm, freedom of the press and the media, there are certainly questions to be answered about why some can offer their views and others cannot. Independence of the bbc from government interference, any government is vital.
-
To be honest with you flower I don’t give a shite. Was only stating a fact. I avoid news and politics like the plague. It’s a toxic swamp which ever side you’re batting and it’s not good for my mental health.
If it was written into his contract that he shouldn’t do certain things then he shouldn’t do them or not sign it in the first place.
-
The left think the bbc is right wing and the right think it’s left wing. Always have done.
I don’t particularly like the bbc and couldn’t care less about Linekar but it must be doing something for balance to achieve this.
This may be the most important discussion in the UK atm, freedom of the press and the media, there are certainly questions to be answered about why some can offer their views and others cannot. Independence of the bbc from government interference, any government is vital.
Abolish the license fee and make it stand on its own 2 feet as a private company? Or in some other vague way?
-
The left think the bbc is right wing and the right think it’s left wing. Always have done.
I don’t particularly like the bbc and couldn’t care less about Linekar but it must be doing something for balance to achieve this.
This may be the most important discussion in the UK atm, freedom of the press and the media, there are certainly questions to be answered about why some can offer their views and others cannot. Independence of the bbc from government interference, any government is vital.
Abolish the license fee and make it stand on its own 2 feet as a private company? Or in some other vague way?
You're just muddying the waters nc, the detail about what was said or how independence is achieved is secondary to a government controlled media.
-
To be honest with you flower I don’t give a shite. Was only stating a fact. I avoid news and politics like the plague. It’s a toxic swamp which ever side you’re batting and it’s not good for my mental health.
If it was written into his contract that he shouldn’t do certain things then he shouldn’t do them or not sign it in the first place.
The BBC impartiality rules being cited as being broken are not part of his contract.
He broke rules which did not apply to him.
-
BBC is wrong on this one imo. Even if your a gammon and pineapple type and love the nonsense Braverman comes out with what does it matter what Lineker says on his personal twitter feeds?
BBC needs to be politically neutral but it’s not like he did it on air or is a political correspondent. His personal opinions have no bearing on how he does his job like it might other roles.
Frankly the government at the moment are a shambles and the BBC seem to give them a easy ride.
This is why he has been suspended
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/
and
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/conflicts-of-interest
He cannot tweet comments that break their impartiality and conflict of interests rules and not be expected to be disciplined. It is not a matter of free speech but a matter of breaking BBC rules. He can say what he like on twitter if he resigns from his BBC position.
The impartiality rules apply to political commentators or newscasters. The host of Cbeebies doesn't have to adhere to impartiality rules outside the office and the same applies to Lineker, who is also exempt from some rules because he is technically a freelancer.
-
I see that Fiona Bruce is defended by BBC for her defence of Stanley Johnson breaking his wife’s nose because it was “a one off”. The timing of all this just highlights the hypocrisy.
If the guidelines are written to allow Lord Sugar to tweet directly telling people to vote Johnson and not labour many times and allow party donors, even the director general was head of a Tory member club, and Bruce’s comments plus the many other Tory leaning conflicts that have been highlighted but not a mild criticism of a policy, not a party or plea to vote, then the guidelines are wrong.
Too many people just hide behind “well that’s the rule” without questioning if it’s right or been applied fairly. Glad this has blown up you can see from the BBC senior leadership’s allegiance that this has slowly been creeping in for years. Better to make it obvious for all.
-
If you look at what he said it was fact.
Also, bbc give a seat to Andrew Neil Clarkson etc. All nite their opinion on other media but left alone........go figure eh
-
The left think the bbc is right wing and the right think it’s left wing. Always have done.
I don’t particularly like the bbc and couldn’t care less about Linekar but it must be doing something for balance to achieve this.
This may be the most important discussion in the UK atm, freedom of the press and the media, there are certainly questions to be answered about why some can offer their views and others cannot. Independence of the bbc from government interference, any government is vital.
Abolish the license fee and make it stand on its own 2 feet as a private company? Or in some other vague way?
Makes me laugh how people moan about the licence fee then pay £100 a month for Murdoch's crap.
Braverman's language is disgraceful plus she's thick as mince, doesn't know the difference between tens of thousands, millions and billions or maybe that's just gaslighting.
-
BBC is wrong on this one imo. Even if your a gammon and pineapple type and love the nonsense Braverman comes out with what does it matter what Lineker says on his personal twitter feeds?
BBC needs to be politically neutral but it’s not like he did it on air or is a political correspondent. His personal opinions have no bearing on how he does his job like it might other roles.
Frankly the government at the moment are a shambles and the BBC seem to give them a easy ride.
This is why he has been suspended
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/
and
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/conflicts-of-interest
He cannot tweet comments that break their impartiality and conflict of interests rules and not be expected to be disciplined. It is not a matter of free speech but a matter of breaking BBC rules. He can say what he like on twitter if he resigns from his BBC position.
Maybe during this discussion you should change your name to Bessie BLUE.
-
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/conflicts-of-interest
There you go he broke BBC rules!
Thanks for that.
From your first link:
"A potential conflict of interest arises when there is the possibility that an individual’s external activities or interests may affect, or be reasonably perceived as affecting, the BBC’s impartiality and its integrity."
So the BBC Chairperson, who donated £400k to the Tory party and arranged an £800k loan to PM Johnson a few weeks before landing the BBC job?
Alan Sugar who has saved a several year trolling job of Diane Abbot on Twitter?
Andrew Neil who was Chairman of the very right wing The Spectator whole he was the BBC's chief political interviewer, and frequently expressed his opinion on party political issues on Twitter?
-
I see that Fiona Bruce is defended by BBC for her defence of Stanley Johnson breaking his wife’s nose because it was “a one off”. The timing of all this just highlights the hypocrisy.
If the guidelines are written to allow Lord Sugar to tweet directly telling people to vote Johnson and not labour many times and allow party donors, even the director general was head of a Tory member club, and Bruce’s comments plus the many other Tory leaning conflicts that have been highlighted but not a mild criticism of a policy, not a party or plea to vote, then the guidelines are wrong.
Too many people just hide behind “well that’s the rule” without questioning if it’s right or been applied fairly. Glad this has blown up you can see from the BBC senior leadership’s allegiance that this has slowly been creeping in for years. Better to make it obvious for all.
She didn’t defend him. She said that some of his friends said it was a one off. She also said that she didn’t dispute what a guest was saying about him being a wife beater.
For the record, I’m not condoning what he did in any way - what he did was despicable.
But neither was Fiona Bruce.
-
Gary Lineker regularly makes political comments on Twitter. He's not been suspended previously.
He's been suspended specifically for stating "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.”
Giving political opinions is one thing.
Comparing current day UK politicians or institutions to the Nazis in Germany is quite another.
Being confronted about the appropriateness of making such a statement and then refusing to apologies over it is quite another thing again.
Struggling to see how anyone can have any sympathy for the man let alone defend him.
Perhaps some on here need to take a lesson in history.
-
Gary Lineker regularly makes political comments on Twitter. He's not been suspended previously.
He's been suspended specifically for stating "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.”
Giving political opinions is one thing.
Comparing current day UK politicians or institutions to the Nazis in Germany is quite another.
Being confronted about the appropriateness of making such a statement and then refusing to apologies over it is quite another thing again.
Struggling to see how anyone can have any sympathy for the man let alone defend him.
Perhaps some on here need to take a lesson in history.
Perhaps it's yourself who needs the lesson in history .
Control of the media , the right wing press and other media platforms allowed to spew any kind of comment that dehumanises vulnerable people in order to divert attention away from their own failings .
Anyone opposing them is shut down whilst they continue to go to to work on Mick Lynch , the nurses , benefit claimants and immigrants .
That was 1930's Germany where everything was blamed on the Jews.
Almost anything and anybody to try and divide and conquer in order to keep things in the UK just the way they are and the system ultimately weighed heavily towards wealth and keeping their power .
You sir have fallen for their bile , lock , stock and barrel .
Does the immigration situation need a solution , yes it does .
Clearly you haven't worked out that the present UK government doesn't want a solution and their present policies are unworkable because it doesn't suit them to have a solution for the very reasons I've explained .
-
The point is we as a nation are being gaslighted by the right wing press. Deflected from the real problems and trying to appeal to the very lowest common denominator. Gary Lineker isn't allowed to air his view because he's 'new money', we take orders from 'old money', the powers behind the Mail, Sun, Telegraph, Express. Suella's language is like early 1930's nazi germany, in the way she is trying to demonise a certain group of people but then àgain that was championed by the Daily Mail, just like Suella will be now.
-
Gary Lineker regularly makes political comments on Twitter. He's not been suspended previously.
He's been suspended specifically for stating "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.”
Giving political opinions is one thing.
Comparing current day UK politicians or institutions to the Nazis in Germany is quite another.
Being confronted about the appropriateness of making such a statement and then refusing to apologies over it is quite another thing again.
Struggling to see how anyone can have any sympathy for the man let alone defend him.
Perhaps some on here need to take a lesson in history.
I mean, WTAF! You've completely ignored the weapons-grade hypocrisy at play here, apart from the the fact that the very point the original tweet made has rather been proven by subsequent events. Lineker's removal was politically motivated and the support he's received from colleagues and others, inside and outside the game, suggest he has hit the nail on the head.
-
Gary Lineker regularly makes political comments on Twitter. He's not been suspended previously.
He's been suspended specifically for stating "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.”
Giving political opinions is one thing.
Comparing current day UK politicians or institutions to the Nazis in Germany is quite another.
Being confronted about the appropriateness of making such a statement and then refusing to apologies over it is quite another thing again.
Struggling to see how anyone can have any sympathy for the man let alone defend him.
Perhaps some on here need to take a lesson in history.
Perhaps it's yourself who needs the lesson in history .
Control of the media , the right wing press and other media platforms allowed to spew any kind of comment that dehumanises vulnerable people in order to divert attention away from their own failings .
Anyone opposing them is shut down whilst they continue to go to to work on Mick Lynch , the nurses , benefit claimants and immigrants .
That was 1930's Germany where everything was blamed on the Jews.
Almost anything and anybody to try and divide and conquer in order to keep things in the UK just the way they are and the system ultimately weighed heavily towards wealth and keeping their power .
You sir have fallen for their bile , lock , stock and barrel .
Does the immigration situation need a solution , yes it does .
Clearly you haven't worked out that the present UK government doesn't want a solution and their present policies are unworkable because it doesn't suit them to have a solution for the very reasons I've explained .
Absolutely 100% Tyke.
-
Perhaps it's yourself who needs the lesson in history .
Control of the media , the right wing press and other media platforms allowed to spew any kind of comment that dehumanises vulnerable people in order to divert attention away from their own failings .
Anyone opposing them is shut down whilst they continue to go to to work on Mick Lynch , the nurses , benefit claimants and immigrants .
That was 1930's Germany where everything was blamed on the Jews.
Almost anything and anybody to try and divide and conquer in order to keep things in the UK just the way they are and the system ultimately weighed heavily towards wealth and keeping their power .
You sir have fallen for their bile , lock , stock and barrel .
Does the immigration situation need a solution , yes it does .
Clearly you haven't worked out that the present UK government doesn't want a solution and their present policies are unworkable because it doesn't suit them to have a solution for the very reasons I've explained .
With respect you've missed my point in entirely.
I'm not defending the Tories or their Immigration Bill. I'm criticising Gary Lineker's puerile and inappropriate comparison to 1930s Nazi Germany.
A lesson in history. This is the Nazi party who were responsible for Kristallnacht; Guernica; the annexation of the Sudetenland; the invasion of Poland; the internment of gypsies, homosexuals and political opponents in forced labour camps; the ending of democratic elections; the banning of other political parties
And used the power of propaganda and of language to justify these actions both in advance and in the aftermath of said actions.
This is very language of 30s Germany that Lineker is drawing equivalence to in his tweet criticising the language of the Tories today.
Surely you can see past your dislike, even hatred, of the Tory party and their Immigration Bill and can see that drawing such equivalence is highly inappropriate.
-
Gary Lineker regularly makes political comments on Twitter. He's not been suspended previously.
He's been suspended specifically for stating "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.”
Giving political opinions is one thing.
Comparing current day UK politicians or institutions to the Nazis in Germany is quite another.
Being confronted about the appropriateness of making such a statement and then refusing to apologies over it is quite another thing again.
Struggling to see how anyone can have any sympathy for the man let alone defend him.
Perhaps some on here need to take a lesson in history.
I mean, WTAF! You've completely ignored the weapons-grade hypocrisy at play here, apart from the the fact that the very point the original tweet made has rather been proven by subsequent events. Lineker's removal was politically motivated and the support he's received from colleagues and others, inside and outside the game, suggest he has hit the nail on the head.
Absolutely right!! :that:
-
Gary Lineker regularly makes political comments on Twitter. He's not been suspended previously.
He's been suspended specifically for stating "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.”
Giving political opinions is one thing.
Comparing current day UK politicians or institutions to the Nazis in Germany is quite another.
Being confronted about the appropriateness of making such a statement and then refusing to apologies over it is quite another thing again.
Struggling to see how anyone can have any sympathy for the man let alone defend him.
Perhaps some on here need to take a lesson in history.
Perhaps it's yourself who needs the lesson in history .
Control of the media , the right wing press and other media platforms allowed to spew any kind of comment that dehumanises vulnerable people in order to divert attention away from their own failings .
Anyone opposing them is shut down whilst they continue to go to to work on Mick Lynch , the nurses , benefit claimants and immigrants .
That was 1930's Germany where everything was blamed on the Jews.
Almost anything and anybody to try and divide and conquer in order to keep things in the UK just the way they are and the system ultimately weighed heavily towards wealth and keeping their power .
You sir have fallen for their bile , lock , stock and barrel .
Does the immigration situation need a solution , yes it does .
Clearly you haven't worked out that the present UK government doesn't want a solution and their present policies are unworkable because it doesn't suit them to have a solution for the very reasons I've explained .
:that:
-
Perhaps it's yourself who needs the lesson in history .
Control of the media , the right wing press and other media platforms allowed to spew any kind of comment that dehumanises vulnerable people in order to divert attention away from their own failings .
Anyone opposing them is shut down whilst they continue to go to to work on Mick Lynch , the nurses , benefit claimants and immigrants .
That was 1930's Germany where everything was blamed on the Jews.
Almost anything and anybody to try and divide and conquer in order to keep things in the UK just the way they are and the system ultimately weighed heavily towards wealth and keeping their power .
You sir have fallen for their bile , lock , stock and barrel .
Does the immigration situation need a solution , yes it does .
Clearly you haven't worked out that the present UK government doesn't want a solution and their present policies are unworkable because it doesn't suit them to have a solution for the very reasons I've explained .
With respect you've missed my point in entirely.
I'm not defending the Tories or their Immigration Bill. I'm criticising Gary Lineker's puerile and inappropriate comparison to 1930s Nazi Germany.
A lesson in history. This is the Nazi party who were responsible for Kristallnacht; Guernica; the annexation of the Sudetenland; the invasion of Poland; the internment of gypsies, homosexuals and political opponents in forced labour camps; the ending of democratic elections; the banning of other political parties
And used the power of propaganda and of language to justify these actions both in advance and in the aftermath of said actions.
This is very language of 30s Germany that Lineker is drawing equivalence to in his tweet criticising the language of the Tories today.
Surely you can see past your dislike, even hatred, of the Tory party and their Immigration Bill and can see that drawing such equivalence is highly inappropriate.
-
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/conflicts-of-interest
There you go he broke BBC rules!
Thanks for that.
From your first link:
"A potential conflict of interest arises when there is the possibility that an individual’s external activities or interests may affect, or be reasonably perceived as affecting, the BBC’s impartiality and its integrity."
So the BBC Chairperson, who donated £400k to the Tory party and arranged an £800k loan to PM Johnson a few weeks before landing the BBC job?
Alan Sugar who has saved a several year trolling job of Diane Abbot on Twitter?
Andrew Neil who was Chairman of the very right wing The Spectator whole he was the BBC's chief political interviewer, and frequently expressed his opinion on party political issues on Twitter?
I agree they should all be disciplined too.
-
Tory MP's have literally said that anyone who is against this law (which had been condemned by the UNHCR and which the HO itself says likely is illegal under ECHR rules) is disloyal to the country and pretty much in the same breath lumped in the legal system, the civil service and the Labour party in that group.
Braverman said we were being "invaded".
Of course that is language which is reminiscent of 1930s Germany.
Or, at the very least, it is reasonable to point out the similarities.
-
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/conflicts-of-interest
There you go he broke BBC rules!
Thanks for that.
From your first link:
"A potential conflict of interest arises when there is the possibility that an individual’s external activities or interests may affect, or be reasonably perceived as affecting, the BBC’s impartiality and its integrity."
So the BBC Chairperson, who donated £400k to the Tory party and arranged an £800k loan to PM Johnson a few weeks before landing the BBC job?
Alan Sugar who has saved a several year trolling job of Diane Abbot on Twitter?
Andrew Neil who was Chairman of the very right wing The Spectator whole he was the BBC's chief political interviewer, and frequently expressed his opinion on party political issues on Twitter?
I agree they should all be disciplined too.
Why do you think only Lineker has been disciplined?
-
To be honest with you flower I don’t give a shite. Was only stating a fact. I avoid news and politics like the plague. It’s a toxic swamp which ever side you’re batting and it’s not good for my mental health.
If it was written into his contract that he shouldn’t do certain things then he shouldn’t do them or not sign it in the first place.
The BBC impartiality rules being cited as being broken are not part of his contract.
He broke rules which did not apply to him.
Do you have access to the wording of his contract with the BBC? Any full time or contracted external consultant working where I work have to comply fully with our rules. I'd be very surprised if the BBC is any different.
-
So it looks like the BBC have suspended him for his comments ,now wright and shearer have pulled out of hosting match of the day as well ,I don't see what he did wrong ,it was on his Twitter page not while he was hosting the program
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/conflicts-of-interest
There you go he broke BBC rules!
Thanks for that.
From your first link:
"A potential conflict of interest arises when there is the possibility that an individual’s external activities or interests may affect, or be reasonably perceived as affecting, the BBC’s impartiality and its integrity."
So the BBC Chairperson, who donated £400k to the Tory party and arranged an £800k loan to PM Johnson a few weeks before landing the BBC job?
Alan Sugar who has saved a several year trolling job of Diane Abbot on Twitter?
Andrew Neil who was Chairman of the very right wing The Spectator whole he was the BBC's chief political interviewer, and frequently expressed his opinion on party political issues on Twitter?
I agree they should all be disciplined too.
Why do you think only Lineker has been disciplined?
I don't know, I don't work in the BBC Human Resources dept., do you?
-
Perhaps it's yourself who needs the lesson in history .
Control of the media , the right wing press and other media platforms allowed to spew any kind of comment that dehumanises vulnerable people in order to divert attention away from their own failings .
Anyone opposing them is shut down whilst they continue to go to to work on Mick Lynch , the nurses , benefit claimants and immigrants .
That was 1930's Germany where everything was blamed on the Jews.
Almost anything and anybody to try and divide and conquer in order to keep things in the UK just the way they are and the system ultimately weighed heavily towards wealth and keeping their power .
You sir have fallen for their bile , lock , stock and barrel .
Does the immigration situation need a solution , yes it does .
Clearly you haven't worked out that the present UK government doesn't want a solution and their present policies are unworkable because it doesn't suit them to have a solution for the very reasons I've explained .
With respect you've missed my point in entirely.
I'm not defending the Tories or their Immigration Bill. I'm criticising Gary Lineker's puerile and inappropriate comparison to 1930s Nazi Germany.
A lesson in history. This is the Nazi party who were responsible for Kristallnacht; Guernica; the annexation of the Sudetenland; the invasion of Poland; the internment of gypsies, homosexuals and political opponents in forced labour camps; the ending of democratic elections; the banning of other political parties
And used the power of propaganda and of language to justify these actions both in advance and in the aftermath of said actions.
This is very language of 30s Germany that Lineker is drawing equivalence to in his tweet criticising the language of the Tories today.
Surely you can see past your dislike, even hatred, of the Tory party and their Immigration Bill and can see that drawing such equivalence is highly inappropriate.
Absolutely right
-
Perhaps it's yourself who needs the lesson in history .
Control of the media , the right wing press and other media platforms allowed to spew any kind of comment that dehumanises vulnerable people in order to divert attention away from their own failings .
Anyone opposing them is shut down whilst they continue to go to to work on Mick Lynch , the nurses , benefit claimants and immigrants .
That was 1930's Germany where everything was blamed on the Jews.
Almost anything and anybody to try and divide and conquer in order to keep things in the UK just the way they are and the system ultimately weighed heavily towards wealth and keeping their power .
You sir have fallen for their bile , lock , stock and barrel .
Does the immigration situation need a solution , yes it does .
Clearly you haven't worked out that the present UK government doesn't want a solution and their present policies are unworkable because it doesn't suit them to have a solution for the very reasons I've explained .
With respect you've missed my point in entirely.
I'm not defending the Tories or their Immigration Bill. I'm criticising Gary Lineker's puerile and inappropriate comparison to 1930s Nazi Germany.
A lesson in history. This is the Nazi party who were responsible for Kristallnacht; Guernica; the annexation of the Sudetenland; the invasion of Poland; the internment of gypsies, homosexuals and political opponents in forced labour camps; the ending of democratic elections; the banning of other political parties
And used the power of propaganda and of language to justify these actions both in advance and in the aftermath of said actions.
This is very language of 30s Germany that Lineker is drawing equivalence to in his tweet criticising the language of the Tories today.
Surely you can see past your dislike, even hatred, of the Tory party and their Immigration Bill and can see that drawing such equivalence is highly inappropriate.
Rather naive Branton with all due respect .
Just because there aren't jack booted militias doing goose steps at Nuremburg rallies doesn't mean the same Nazi play book isn't getting used here .
It's way more subtle than Concentration Camps , allegiance to the Fuhrer or Fatherland and Kristelnacht .
This isn't physical persecution it's psychological .
Free speech is a fundamental democratic right and this cuts both ways , Nick Griffin had a democratic right to be heard the same as Gary Lineker has .
You take that away then your heading down a rocky road .
-
The BBC (or, more correctly, it's senior management placemen from the heart of the Tory party) says Lineker has to be disciplined because its staff can't get involved in party political arguments.
This is what Sugar tweeted in the middle of the 2019 election campaign.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cCjkvuZM6Jw/XXi8jQQiBhI/AAAAAAABQjc/AS-TKyb-kBgBp8iAh_XYcUi3Kr2vY_j4wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/SugarBigot10.png)
Not a word said to him.
By the way, that line from the BBC. That means that if we ever did get an authoritarian right or left wing Govt that tried to undermine legal democratic processes [1] the BBC would bothsides the issue.
[1] For the record, I think we are well on the way to having one now, and Braverman is a fascist-in-waiting, testing the waters here to see how society and its institutions react.
Which is why I back Lineker to the hilt.
-
The fact that we're having this argument on a Doncaster Rovers forum is a massive triumph for the tory party, its their plan, create a culture war, divide and rule. On reflection I am ashamed of myself for rising to it and won't be commenting further more.
#COYR!
-
BBC is wrong on this one imo. Even if your a gammon and pineapple type and love the nonsense Braverman comes out with what does it matter what Lineker says on his personal twitter feeds?
BBC needs to be politically neutral but it’s not like he did it on air or is a political correspondent. His personal opinions have no bearing on how he does his job like it might other roles.
Frankly the government at the moment are a shambles and the BBC seem to give them a easy ride.
This is why he has been suspended
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/
and
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/conflicts-of-interest
He cannot tweet comments that break their impartiality and conflict of interests rules and not be expected to be disciplined. It is not a matter of free speech but a matter of breaking BBC rules. He can say what he like on twitter if he resigns from his BBC position.
The impartiality rules apply to political commentators or newscasters. The host of Cbeebies doesn't have to adhere to impartiality rules outside the office and the same applies to Lineker, who is also exempt from some rules because he is technically a freelancer.
Wrong. Read them again and note the following specifics:
"Staff, presenters & others who contribute to our output" - Section 14 - Impartiality
"A potential conflict of interest arises when there is a possibility that an individual’s external activities may affect or be reasonably perceived as affecting BBC's impartiality " - Section 15 - Conflict of interests
"The requirement extends to freelance presenters " - Section 15 - Conflict of interests
The final decision regarding disciplinary action rests solely with BBC's HR dept. not me, you or any politicians.
-
The BBC (or, more correctly, it's senior management placemen from the heart of the Tory party) says Lineker has to be disciplined because its staff can't get involved in party political arguments.
This is what Sugar tweeted in the middle of the 2019 election campaign.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cCjkvuZM6Jw/XXi8jQQiBhI/AAAAAAABQjc/AS-TKyb-kBgBp8iAh_XYcUi3Kr2vY_j4wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/SugarBigot10.png)
Not a word said to him.
By the way, that line from the BBC. That means that if we ever did get an authoritarian right or left wing Govt that tried to undermine legal democratic processes [1] the BBC would bothsides the issue.
[1] For the record, I think we are well on the way to having one now, and Braverman is a fascist-in-waiting, testing the waters here to see how society and its institutions react.
Which is why I back Lineker to the hilt.
YOU BACK LINEKER TO THE HILT BECAUSE HE SAID SOMETHING THAT SUITED YOUR POLITICAL AGENDA. HAD HE SAID SOMETHING AGAINST YOUR BELOVED LABOUR PARTY YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BACKED HIM.
Quite simple really, eh Billy lad!
-
The fact that we're having this argument on a Doncaster Rovers forum is a massive triumph for the tory party, its their plan, create a culture war, divide and rule. On reflection I am ashamed of myself for rising to it and won't be commenting further more.
#COYR!
-
The BBC (or, more correctly, it's senior management placemen from the heart of the Tory party) says Lineker has to be disciplined because its staff can't get involved in party political arguments.
This is what Sugar tweeted in the middle of the 2019 election campaign.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cCjkvuZM6Jw/XXi8jQQiBhI/AAAAAAABQjc/AS-TKyb-kBgBp8iAh_XYcUi3Kr2vY_j4wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/SugarBigot10.png)
Not a word said to him.
By the way, that line from the BBC. That means that if we ever did get an authoritarian right or left wing Govt that tried to undermine legal democratic processes [1] the BBC would bothsides the issue.
[1] For the record, I think we are well on the way to having one now, and Braverman is a fascist-in-waiting, testing the waters here to see how society and its institutions react.
Which is why I back Lineker to the hilt.
BST as I've said previously Sugar, Sharp & Neil should all be disciplined for their actions however that decision is solely down to the BBC HR dept, not you me or any politicians
-
And as I replied Bessie, why do you think they didn't?
-
BBC is wrong on this one imo. Even if your a gammon and pineapple type and love the nonsense Braverman comes out with what does it matter what Lineker says on his personal twitter feeds?
BBC needs to be politically neutral but it’s not like he did it on air or is a political correspondent. His personal opinions have no bearing on how he does his job like it might other roles.
Frankly the government at the moment are a shambles and the BBC seem to give them a easy ride.
This is why he has been suspended
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/
and
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/conflicts-of-interest
He cannot tweet comments that break their impartiality and conflict of interests rules and not be expected to be disciplined. It is not a matter of free speech but a matter of breaking BBC rules. He can say what he like on twitter if he resigns from his BBC position.
Maybe during this discussion you should change your name to Bessie BLUE.
Why is that then EfD? All I am doing is presenting facts by showing what the BBC rules are around these sort of issues. How they discipline individuals who break those rules is entirely within the remit of their HR dept. not you,me or any politicians.
-
And as I replied Bessie, why do you think they didn't?
I refer you to my previous answer I don't know as I don't work in the BBC's HR dept. who are the ones who recommend disciplinary actions if they determine that BBC rules are broken, just like any other legitimate business across the UK.
-
And as I replied Bessie, why do you think they didn't?
Maybe because they didn't go as far as comparing the government to Nazi Germany.
-
And as I replied Bessie, why do you think they didn't?
Maybe because they didn't go as far as comparing the government to Nazi Germany.
Tbf if they have broken BBC rules as determined by the BBC HR dept then they should also have been disciplined.
-
We can go on for ever on this topic. Despite what Liniker said the majority of our population don’t want the current cross channel invasion to continue. My view is that the current influx are sponsored by gangs who have sinister ambitions this is damaging for the genuine asylum seekers. Linikers comparison is a slur on the democracy and freedom that we enjoy today what’s more it didn’t come cheap. All this clap trap about extreme left or right simply won’t happen here the general public won’t allow it.
-
By the way Bessie. This is WAY above HR level stuff. It's not like Lineker has been caught nicking a pack of Post-Its from the stationery cupboard.
Linker was told to stand down by the Director General, Tim Davie.
Tim Davie was a minor Tory politician in the 1990s. Ordinarily that would be no issue. We all make mistakes and deserve redemption...
But Tim Davie reports to the Chair of the BBC.
Which is Richard Sharp.
Who, shortly before getting that job, arranged to bail out our then man-child with a thick end of £1m loan. And who had previously stuck £400k in the Tory party coffers. In short, a lifelong, dedicated pillar of the Tory establishment, who is exquisitely connected to senior Tory MPs.
Now why do you think Lineker has been disciplined when the others weren't?
-
The BBC (or, more correctly, it's senior management placemen from the heart of the Tory party) says Lineker has to be disciplined because its staff can't get involved in party political arguments.
This is what Sugar tweeted in the middle of the 2019 election campaign.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cCjkvuZM6Jw/XXi8jQQiBhI/AAAAAAABQjc/AS-TKyb-kBgBp8iAh_XYcUi3Kr2vY_j4wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/SugarBigot10.png)
Not a word said to him.
By the way, that line from the BBC. That means that if we ever did get an authoritarian right or left wing Govt that tried to undermine legal democratic processes [1] the BBC would bothsides the issue.
[1] For the record, I think we are well on the way to having one now, and Braverman is a fascist-in-waiting, testing the waters here to see how society and its institutions react.
Which is why I back Lineker to the hilt.
YOU BACK LINEKER TO THE HILT BECAUSE HE SAID SOMETHING THAT SUITED YOUR POLITICAL AGENDA. HAD HE SAID SOMETHING AGAINST YOUR BELOVED LABOUR PARTY YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BACKED HIM.
Quite simple really, eh Billy lad!
I'm going to put hope over a decade of bitter experience and see if I can get you, just once, to engage like a grown up.
Do YOU think the BBC has been consistent in the way it dealt with Lineker, compared to Sugar, Neil and Clarkson?
-
Presumably those against Gary Lineker would also agree that if he'd tweeted pro government immigration policy and stood with Braverman he'd have also broken impartiality rules and would be on gardening leave today .
The BBC and the government would be up in arms ....... Yes ?
-
Gary Lineker: "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.”
Now consider the below quotes: -
Heinrich Himmler on justifying Germany's invasion of Poland: "The Slavs are subhuman people of the East"; "the primary goal of the German state is the destruction of the Polish nation."
Adolf Hitler on Jewish people "With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people."
Can anyone justify drawing an equivalence of the language of these quotes to the language being used by Tories now? Really??
-
If Lineker tweets from his own personal account rather than an official bbc account, he’s not representing the bbc.
If he tweets from a personal account criticising the bbc, that’s different and a potential problem.
Most organisations have rules against employees bringing them into disrepute - ie don’t misuse official media channels and don’t slag us off on your personal media.
What the hell has Lineker’s personally presented opinion on the refugees got to do with the bbc.?
As for the Nazi comparison, he did say he was comparing the language used, no mention at all of comparing the actual organisations.!!
-
I wonder if the BBC will be consistent and discipline all those who have stood with Lineker...
-
Jonathan Pie once again so eloquently making the point.
He's almost gone 100% from satire to social commentary... in the sense that it'd be funny if it wasn't so close to the truth.
https://youtu.be/jXqVGtxFppQ
-
By the way Bessie. This is WAY above HR level stuff. It's not like Lineker has been caught nicking a pack of Post-Its from the stationery cupboard.
Linker was told to stand down by the Director General, Tim Davie.
Tim Davie was a minor Tory politician in the 1990s. Ordinarily that would be no issue. We all make mistakes and deserve redemption...
But Tim Davie reports to the Chair of the BBC.
Which is Richard Sharp.
Who, shortly before getting that job, arranged to bail out our then man-child with a thick end of £1m loan. And who had previously stuck £400k in the Tory party coffers. In short, a lifelong, dedicated pillar of the Tory establishment, who is exquisitely connected to senior Tory MPs.
Now why do you think Lineker has been disciplined when the others weren't?
It's not way above HR level stuff, do you know what HR do within a business?
You keep asking me why the others weren't disciplined & I keep telling you I haven't got a clue, and neither do you or any one else not party to BBC HR investigations!
Seems to me that you are pushing your political beliefs onto this debate whereas all I am doing is giving people the facts on the BBC rules relevant to this type of issue. As I keep saying it is the BBC HR dept responsibility to determine if any rules have been broken in this case, and if they believe they have then they will recommend a specific disciplinary action. Lineker has every right to appeal against their decision. Has he,I don't know?
-
Branton
You're REALLY doubling down?
Of COURSE he wasn't drawing similarities to those quotes. But those quotes didn't come out of nowhere. There was a path that ended up there. Starting with milder but still abhorrent nationalistic tropes. Like calling on the will of the people to be granted. Like calling opponents of policy disloyal to the nation. BOTH of those lines have been used this week by Bravernan and her supporters.
-
The BBC (or, more correctly, it's senior management placemen from the heart of the Tory party) says Lineker has to be disciplined because its staff can't get involved in party political arguments.
This is what Sugar tweeted in the middle of the 2019 election campaign.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cCjkvuZM6Jw/XXi8jQQiBhI/AAAAAAABQjc/AS-TKyb-kBgBp8iAh_XYcUi3Kr2vY_j4wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/SugarBigot10.png)
Not a word said to him.
By the way, that line from the BBC. That means that if we ever did get an authoritarian right or left wing Govt that tried to undermine legal democratic processes [1] the BBC would bothsides the issue.
[1] For the record, I think we are well on the way to having one now, and Braverman is a fascist-in-waiting, testing the waters here to see how society and its institutions react.
Which is why I back Lineker to the hilt.
YOU BACK LINEKER TO THE HILT BECAUSE HE SAID SOMETHING THAT SUITED YOUR POLITICAL AGENDA. HAD HE SAID SOMETHING AGAINST YOUR BELOVED LABOUR PARTY YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BACKED HIM.
Quite simple really, eh Billy lad!
I'm going to put hope over a decade of bitter experience and see if I can get you, just once, to engage like a grown up.
Do YOU think the BBC has been consistent in the way it dealt with Lineker, compared to Sugar, Neil and Clarkson?
Not really, Clarkson was sacked, Neill resigned, and Sugar didn't suggest Diane Abbott spoke like a nazi.
-
So Sugar was showing impartiality?
Best laugh I've had all day.
-
If Lineker tweets from his own personal account rather than an official bbc account, he’s not representing the bbc.
If he tweets from a personal account criticising the bbc, that’s different and a potential problem.
Most organisations have rules against employees bringing them into disrepute - ie don’t misuse official media channels and don’t slag us off on your personal media.
What the hell has Lineker’s personally presented opinion on the refugees got to do with the bbc.?
As for the Nazi comparison, he did say he was comparing the language used, no mention at all of comparing the actual organisations.!!
Wrong - look at the BBC's specific rules on this type of thing. I have referred to them and the specifics around social media content which hopefully will help you to understand that what he did in the eyes of the BBC HR dept broke those rules and appropriate disciplinary action taken. Lineker obviously has the right to appeal against the ruling.
-
Bessie.
Read the papers and the BBC's own reporting. It was the DG who dealt with Lineker. The chief executive. WAY above common or garden HR.
But the DG never got involved with Sugar, Neil or Clarkson. In fact, neither did HR.
-
Branton
You're REALLY doubling down?
Of COURSE he wasn't drawing similarities to those quotes. But those quotes didn't come out of nowhere. There was a path that ended up there. Starting with milder but still abhorrent nationalistic tropes. Like calling on the will of the people to be granted. Like calling opponents of policy disloyal to the nation. BOTH of those lines have been used this week by Bravernan and her supporters.
Oh I see when Lineker said "language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s” he meant the early/mid 30s when the Nazi's were publicly only a little bit nasty not the late 30s when their language and actions were totally violent and evil.
If only he'd pointed that out in his tweet eh? So glad you're here to point out what he really meant.
PS the Hitler quote was from Mein Kampf published in 1923 so your argument is not only nonsense but historically inaccurate. The Nazis were spreading and encouraging through language vile anti-antisemitism from their very inception. There is no equivalence here. None.
If you're going to make ridiculous broad-brush and inappropriate comparisons of the Nazis to the present day (or for reasons that should be beyond the wit of any reasonable person are defending such statements) you really can't go back and say well I was only referring to part of what Hitler and the Nazi's said.
-
BB
Hope 0-1 Experience.
I should have known...
Lineker has been disciplined not for doing what you said (which he didn't) but for speaking out on a politically sensitive topic.
Not for t**tting someone, like Clarkson did.
And he's not resigned to go to a better paid gig like Neil did.
Neither of thosr two were disciplined for their regular expression of opinions on controversial political issues.
Now.
Go and look at that Sugar tweet.
Do you think that qualifies as expressing an opinion on a controversial political topic?
-
If Lineker tweets from his own personal account rather than an official bbc account, he’s not representing the bbc.
If he tweets from a personal account criticising the bbc, that’s different and a potential problem.
Most organisations have rules against employees bringing them into disrepute - ie don’t misuse official media channels and don’t slag us off on your personal media.
What the hell has Lineker’s personally presented opinion on the refugees got to do with the bbc.?
As for the Nazi comparison, he did say he was comparing the language used, no mention at all of comparing the actual organisations.!!
Wrong - look at the BBC's specific rules on this type of thing. I have referred to them and the specifics around social media content which hopefully will help you to understand that what he did in the eyes of the BBC HR dept broke those rules and appropriate disciplinary action taken. Lineker obviously has the right to appeal against the ruling.
Sorry I disagree - if he was tweeting as a bbc employee/contractor rather than as a private individual, you have a point - otherwise free speech is being stifled.
-
Funny how after the the likes of Cruella kicked a fuss up about it action was taken by the Beeb,at that point the indignation became nothing to do with us it's all up to the Beeb to sort out
-
From Paul Embery a former union leader
Of course Lineker shouldn't be sacked. But the issue is a bit more complex than some suggest. Imagine, say, a Corbyn-led government had been elected and a senior BBC presenter warned that antisemitism had triumphed and the UK was now like Nazi Germany. What might the reaction be?
The point isn't whether that presenter was justified in his/her statement, any more than Lineker was justified in his. The point is whether such a contentious statement by a major BBC figure would conflict with the Charter requirement on impartiality. That is a complex question.
As he says a complex question. What would people on here be saying if what he said had happened?
-
Branton
There's a spectrum.
Fascism gains acceptance and responsibility by worming concepts into people's heads
Dehumanisation of "The Other" - e.g. saying we are being invaded by illegal aliens
Delegitimising of dissent - e.g. saying that the leftwing activist "blob" were being disloyal to the nation.
Calling on some mythical national will to take precedence over legal obligations.
All those methods were used in Germany in the early days of Hitler's ascent. All of them were used in the past few weeks by Braverman.
You choose two examples. I e from when Hitler was a nobody, a raving street fighter, a minor joke figure, before he realised he needed to couch his ideas in the sort of language I give examples of above. The other after fascism had triumphed and was out in the open.
You don't actually think that the German people in the 1930s woke up one morning and said "Right. Time to clear out the untermensch" do you?
That came from a decade of ground laying. If normalising the tropes in the examples I give above.
-
"Imagine, say, a Corbyn-led government had been elected and a senior BBC presenter warned that antisemitism had triumphed and the UK was now like Nazi Germany"
Jesus, the way the ante gets raised...
Why do people do that?
-
From Paul Embery a former union leader
Of course Lineker shouldn't be sacked. But the issue is a bit more complex than some suggest. Imagine, say, a Corbyn-led government had been elected and a senior BBC presenter warned that antisemitism had triumphed and the UK was now like Nazi Germany. What might the reaction be?
The point isn't whether that presenter was justified in his/her statement, any more than Lineker was justified in his. The point is whether such a contentious statement by a major BBC figure would conflict with the Charter requirement on impartiality. That is a complex question.
As he says a complex question. What would people on here be saying if what he said had happened?
To me it’s much more simple. If you tweet as a representative of an organisation then you need to be wary of what you say. What you say as a private individual is of no concern to that organisation, unless you are bad-mouthing it.
-
"Imagine, say, a Corbyn-led government had been elected and a senior BBC presenter warned that antisemitism had triumphed and the UK was now like Nazi Germany"
Jesus, the way the ante gets raised...
Why do people do that?
What might be the reaction if it had been said, would you and others backing Lineker be equal in their backing of the presenter under freedom of speech?
-
Glos
That is nothing remotely like what Lineker said.
So it would be a stupid thing to say.
What Embery is doing here is precisely what Embery does. Exaggerating every Culture War battle line to keep angry people angry.
-
Ah great, politics has spread to the main board now, can this be moved to off topic with the rest of it please?
-
Not a peep from anyone on here about the possible “other” motivation that Lineker might have for appearing to be so “independent” from the BBC.
I refer of course to his current tax issue with the HMRC. All 4.9 million pounds of it. Around one fifth of his estimated wealth.
I’d say that would be a pretty big motivator for him.
-
BBC is wrong on this one imo. Even if your a gammon and pineapple type and love the nonsense Braverman comes out with what does it matter what Lineker says on his personal twitter feeds?
BBC needs to be politically neutral but it’s not like he did it on air or is a political correspondent. His personal opinions have no bearing on how he does his job like it might other roles.
Frankly the government at the moment are a shambles and the BBC seem to give them a easy ride.
This is why he has been suspended
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/
and
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/conflicts-of-interest
He cannot tweet comments that break their impartiality and conflict of interests rules and not be expected to be disciplined. It is not a matter of free speech but a matter of breaking BBC rules. He can say what he like on twitter if he resigns from his BBC position.
The impartiality rules apply to political commentators or newscasters. The host of Cbeebies doesn't have to adhere to impartiality rules outside the office and the same applies to Lineker, who is also exempt from some rules because he is technically a freelancer.
Wrong. Read them again and note the following specifics:
"Staff, presenters & others who contribute to our output" - Section 14 - Impartiality
"A potential conflict of interest arises when there is a possibility that an individual’s external activities may affect or be reasonably perceived as affecting BBC's impartiality " - Section 15 - Conflict of interests
"The requirement extends to freelance presenters " - Section 15 - Conflict of interests
The final decision regarding disciplinary action rests solely with BBC's HR dept. not me, you or any politicians.
Public Expressions of Opinion
15.3.13 Where individuals identify themselves as being linked with the BBC, or are programme makers, editorial staff, reporters or presenters primarily associated with the BBC, their public expressions of opinion have the potential to compromise the BBC’s impartiality and to damage its reputation. This includes the use of social media and writing letters to the press. Opinions expressed on social media are put into the public domain, can be shared and are searchable.
(See Guidance: Social Media)
The risk is greater where the public expressions of opinion overlap with the area of the individual’s work. The risk is lower where an individual is expressing views publicly on an unrelated area, for example, a sports or science presenter expressing views on politics or the arts.
-
If Lineker tweets from his own personal account rather than an official bbc account, he’s not representing the bbc.
If he tweets from a personal account criticising the bbc, that’s different and a potential problem.
Most organisations have rules against employees bringing them into disrepute - ie don’t misuse official media channels and don’t slag us off on your personal media.
What the hell has Lineker’s personally presented opinion on the refugees got to do with the bbc.?
As for the Nazi comparison, he did say he was comparing the language used, no mention at all of comparing the actual organisations.!!
Wrong - look at the BBC's specific rules on this type of thing. I have referred to them and the specifics around social media content which hopefully will help you to understand that what he did in the eyes of the BBC HR dept broke those rules and appropriate disciplinary action taken. Lineker obviously has the right to appeal against the ruling.
Sorry I disagree - if he was tweeting as a bbc employee/contractor rather than as a private individual, you have a point - otherwise free speech is being stifled.
You may well disagree but those are the BBC rules and Lineker is contracted to work for the BBC. It is common within the public sector that there are rules about use of private social media channels and content that should not be put on them by individuals employed by said public sector body.
-
Bessie.
Read the papers and the BBC's own reporting. It was the DG who dealt with Lineker. The chief executive. WAY above common or garden HR.
But the DG never got involved with Sugar, Neil or Clarkson. In fact, neither did HR.
He may well have done but are you seriously implying that the DG did not talk to the HR director first to see what his options were before "dealing" with Lineker.
-
If Lineker tweets from his own personal account rather than an official bbc account, he’s not representing the bbc.
If he tweets from a personal account criticising the bbc, that’s different and a potential problem.
Most organisations have rules against employees bringing them into disrepute - ie don’t misuse official media channels and don’t slag us off on your personal media.
What the hell has Lineker’s personally presented opinion on the refugees got to do with the bbc.?
As for the Nazi comparison, he did say he was comparing the language used, no mention at all of comparing the actual organisations.!!
Wrong - look at the BBC's specific rules on this type of thing. I have referred to them and the specifics around social media content which hopefully will help you to understand that what he did in the eyes of the BBC HR dept broke those rules and appropriate disciplinary action taken. Lineker obviously has the right to appeal against the ruling.
Sorry I disagree - if he was tweeting as a bbc employee/contractor rather than as a private individual, you have a point - otherwise free speech is being stifled.
You may well disagree but those are the BBC rules and Lineker is contracted to work for the BBC. It is common within the public sector that there are rules about use of private social media channels and content that should not be put on them by individuals employed by said public sector body.
I refer you to the last part of DO’s post above.
-
Gary Lineker regularly makes political comments on Twitter. He's not been suspended previously.
He's been suspended specifically for stating "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.”
Giving political opinions is one thing.
Comparing current day UK politicians or institutions to the Nazis in Germany is quite another.
Being confronted about the appropriateness of making such a statement and then refusing to apologies over it is quite another thing again.
Struggling to see how anyone can have any sympathy for the man let alone defend him.
Perhaps some on here need to take a lesson in history.
Perhaps it's yourself who needs the lesson in history .
Control of the media , the right wing press and other media platforms allowed to spew any kind of comment that dehumanises vulnerable people in order to divert attention away from their own failings .
Anyone opposing them is shut down whilst they continue to go to to work on Mick Lynch , the nurses , benefit claimants and immigrants .
That was 1930's Germany where everything was blamed on the Jews.
Almost anything and anybody to try and divide and conquer in order to keep things in the UK just the way they are and the system ultimately weighed heavily towards wealth and keeping their power .
You sir have fallen for their bile , lock , stock and barrel .
Does the immigration situation need a solution , yes it does .
Clearly you haven't worked out that the present UK government doesn't want a solution and their present policies are unworkable because it doesn't suit them to have a solution for the very reasons I've explained .
This.....
-
If Lineker tweets from his own personal account rather than an official bbc account, he’s not representing the bbc.
If he tweets from a personal account criticising the bbc, that’s different and a potential problem.
Most organisations have rules against employees bringing them into disrepute - ie don’t misuse official media channels and don’t slag us off on your personal media.
What the hell has Lineker’s personally presented opinion on the refugees got to do with the bbc.?
As for the Nazi comparison, he did say he was comparing the language used, no mention at all of comparing the actual organisations.!!
Wrong - look at the BBC's specific rules on this type of thing. I have referred to them and the specifics around social media content which hopefully will help you to understand that what he did in the eyes of the BBC HR dept broke those rules and appropriate disciplinary action taken. Lineker obviously has the right to appeal against the ruling.
Sorry I disagree - if he was tweeting as a bbc employee/contractor rather than as a private individual, you have a point - otherwise free speech is being stifled.
You may well disagree but those are the BBC rules and Lineker is contracted to work for the BBC. It is common within the public sector that there are rules about use of private social media channels and content that should not be put on them by individuals employed by said public sector body.
I refer you to the last part of DO’s post above.
Irrelevant if you care to take the time to read the actual words in the BBC's own rules! I know it seems daft but public sector rules sometimes our daft however they need to be able to defend their position if/when criticised by the public. Often it is more about perceived acts of impartiality & conflicts of interest than actual ones!
-
It makes sense that they have to be impartial when representing the bbc.
When does this representation stop?
It could be argued that Lineker’s “standing” and, as such, influence on social media relates more to his football career than his presence on the bbc?
-
The thing I’m seeing from people supporting the BBC is essentially you can be as impartial as you like so long as you don’t reference 1930s Germany. Never mind that the comparison IN LANGUAGE is pretty factual and is a point that was made by Jewish groups before Lineker. Why should anyone be silenced from factual reporting!?
So Gary could have stuck vote labour signs all over his twitter and it’d be fine? No chance! the BBC would have gone after him .
Stop hiding behind the letter of stupid guidelines and use your own moral compass to guide you. If you have to hide behind the letter of guidelines it suggests deep down you know something isn’t right.
-
The left think the bbc is right wing and the right think it’s left wing. Always have done.
I don’t particularly like the bbc and couldn’t care less about Linekar but it must be doing something for balance to achieve this.
This may be the most important discussion in the UK atm, freedom of the press and the media, there are certainly questions to be answered about why some can offer their views and others cannot. Independence of the bbc from government interference, any government is vital.
Abolish the license fee and make it stand on its own 2 feet as a private company? Or in some other vague way?
You're just muddying the waters nc, the detail about what was said or how independence is achieved is secondary to a government controlled media.
Do you think we need a state broadcaster?
-
Bessie.
Surely the ultimate conflict of interest at the BBC is that the boss of the man who told Lineker to step down is a Tory donor who bailed out our man-child PM just before he got this job?
Bigger conflict than anything to do with Lineker by orders of magnitude.
I wonder what HR reckon to that?
-
The left think the bbc is right wing and the right think it’s left wing. Always have done.
I don’t particularly like the bbc and couldn’t care less about Linekar but it must be doing something for balance to achieve this.
This may be the most important discussion in the UK atm, freedom of the press and the media, there are certainly questions to be answered about why some can offer their views and others cannot. Independence of the bbc from government interference, any government is vital.
Abolish the license fee and make it stand on its own 2 feet as a private company? Or in some other vague way?
You're just muddying the waters nc, the detail about what was said or how independence is achieved is secondary to a government controlled media.
Do you think we need a state broadcaster?
Well, of course our leading broadcast companies could be owned by a Berlusconi or a Murdoch...
The BBC model works superbly, IF it has a reasonable political balance in senior management.
That's the core of what has gone wrong here.
A politically unbalanced leadership has insisted that it should bothsides everything.
Bothsidesism doesn't give balance. It gives a massive advantage to the side in politics that wants to push the rules to breaking point.
-
The left think the bbc is right wing and the right think it’s left wing. Always have done.
I don’t particularly like the bbc and couldn’t care less about Linekar but it must be doing something for balance to achieve this.
This may be the most important discussion in the UK atm, freedom of the press and the media, there are certainly questions to be answered about why some can offer their views and others cannot. Independence of the bbc from government interference, any government is vital.
Abolish the license fee and make it stand on its own 2 feet as a private company? Or in some other vague way?
You're just muddying the waters nc, the detail about what was said or how independence is achieved is secondary to a government controlled media.
Do you think we need a state broadcaster?
Well, of course our leading broadcast companies could be owned by a Berlusconi or a Murdoch...
The BBC model works superbly, IF it has a reasonable political balance in senior management.
That's the core of what has gone wrong here.
A politically unbalanced leadership has insisted that it should bothsides everything.
Bothsidesism doesn't give balance. It gives a massive advantage to the side in politics that wants to push the rules to breaking point.
Do ITV / Channel 4 have a political bias?
-
Look at the state of American broadcasting if you think we are better with only partial instead of mostly impartial media.
BBC needs defending it does a pretty good for something so big the corruption at the top needs stamping out. But that’s just a reflection of our current government so I don’t think will change for 18 months
-
The left think the bbc is right wing and the right think it’s left wing. Always have done.
I don’t particularly like the bbc and couldn’t care less about Linekar but it must be doing something for balance to achieve this.
This may be the most important discussion in the UK atm, freedom of the press and the media, there are certainly questions to be answered about why some can offer their views and others cannot. Independence of the bbc from government interference, any government is vital.
Abolish the license fee and make it stand on its own 2 feet as a private company? Or in some other vague way?
You're just muddying the waters nc, the detail about what was said or how independence is achieved is secondary to a government controlled media.
Do you think we need a state broadcaster?
Well, of course our leading broadcast companies could be owned by a Berlusconi or a Murdoch...
The BBC model works superbly, IF it has a reasonable political balance in senior management.
That's the core of what has gone wrong here.
A politically unbalanced leadership has insisted that it should bothsides everything.
Bothsidesism doesn't give balance. It gives a massive advantage to the side in politics that wants to push the rules to breaking point.
Do ITV / Channel 4 have a political bias?
Channel 4 is a state broadcaster. And ITV could get bought by the Saudis or Qataris any day and suddenly become less impartial.
That the BBC is there keeps the others in line.
-
We can go on for ever on this topic. Despite what Liniker said the majority of our population don’t want the current cross channel invasion to continue. My view is that the current influx are sponsored by gangs who have sinister ambitions this is damaging for the genuine asylum seekers. Linikers comparison is a slur on the democracy and freedom that we enjoy today what’s more it didn’t come cheap. All this clap trap about extreme left or right simply won’t happen here the general public won’t allow it.
Don't use words like invasion, it makes it sound like we're at war. These are people who want to claim asylum in our country due to family, language or other reasons and a lot will be escaping persecution, they're not an enemy. It is completely wrong that they're coming over in boats, but that's because there is no safe way of applying for asylum in the UK, other than to get to the UK first.
-
Goole.
Of the people who arrived in boats last year, claimed asylum and had their cases processed, 62% were granted asylum.
Yes there are people abusing the system.
The solution is to root them out, process their cases and deport them.
What Braverman is doing is to lump all cases in the same boat (no pun intended) and class them all as being illegal.
She dehumanises the 62% of geniune asylum seekers by classing them all as being part of an "invasion" - a word you repeat.
She knows that her policy will criminalise the geniune asylum seekers.
She knows it has been heavily criticised by the UNHCR.
She knows her own department has said its 50/50 whether it is legal under the ECHR (other experts have said it's 100% certain that it is illegal).
That's the ECHR that we British basically wrote in the aftermath of WWII, to ensure that the rights of genuine asylum seekers would always be upheld.
She knows all this and she doesn't care.
She and her friends say this is the will of the people, and anyone opposing it is disloyal to the nation, or "unpatriotic" as one Tory donor put it this morning.
That's the attitude and language that Lineker was pointing out.
When you cut through the smoke of the Culture War battlefield, the question is simple.
Do you agree with Braverman, or with those who criticise her policy and language?
It's really as simple as that.
-
Whilst I have breath in my body I could never agree with Braverman and her divisive, racist rhetoric. There is a special place in hell for this malevolent piece of sh.*t! :evil:
-
Perhaps we should look to the Jewish community for their reaction. Given the obvious and strong inference GL made in his tweet. This from the Jewish Chronicle today.
Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, wrote in a Times op-ed: “However passionately we feel about important and pressing issues of the day, it seems to me that comparing those current concerns to the almost unimaginable horrors of the Nazi period is wrong.”
Holocaust survivor Agnes Grunwald-Spier MBE had said the Match of the Day host “should be ashamed” for his tweet.
It's got nothing to do with certain Jewish spokespeople. They have an agenda which they plug in their criticism. Did they focus on the boat people in their comments? Hypocrisy perhaps?
-
He had a cushy number and he messed it up ,by commenting on things he isn’t an expert in. He’s employed to present a football programme, that is what he knows about. He shouldn’t have commented on things he doesn’t understand. His ego is writing cheques that his brain can’t cash!
-
So you understand him better than he does?
-
He had a cushy number and he messed it up ,by commenting on things he isn’t an expert in. He’s employed to present a football programme, that is what he knows about. He shouldn’t have commented on things he doesn’t understand. His ego is writing cheques that his brain can’t cash!
com.enting on stuff he's not an expert in. Then this firm might as well shut down.
What a load of bllcks
-
Although I’m not a fan of his, the more I read in to this, the more I agree with what Linekar has said.
This country should be a beacon of hope and opportunity for people to come and better their lives. We should be setting examples for free speech as this is one value that sets us apart from the places these poor people are coming from.
We were making great strides as a country to recognise the human aspect to these refugee’s stories too, but terms such as “invasion” really do play on people’s tribal instincts. Even from a practical, economic viewpoint it is beneficial to have people wanting to come here to better themselves as that contributes to the economy. It is another pair of hands and a brain capable of solving problems.
This is worth a read - https://metro.co.uk/2023/02/21/im-an-asylum-seeker-and-was-in-the-hotel-targeted-by-far-right-rioters-18316836/
That being said, Gary probably knew there would be consequences to what he said due to the institution he works for. A junior intern would lose their job over this, so Gary can’t be above that because of his standing. The BBC state institution with rules on what it’s employees can express politically is looking increasingly outdated now.
-
Although I’m not a fan of his, the more I read in to this, the more I agree with what Linekar has said.
This country should be a beacon of hope and opportunity for people to come and better their lives. We should be setting examples for free speech as this is one value that sets us apart from the places these poor people are coming from.
We were making great strides as a country to recognise the human aspect to these refugee’s stories too, but terms such as “invasion” really do play on people’s tribal instincts. Even from a practical, economic viewpoint it is beneficial to have people wanting to come here to better themselves as that contributes to the economy. It is another pair of hands and a brain capable of solving problems.
This is worth a read - https://metro.co.uk/2023/02/21/im-an-asylum-seeker-and-was-in-the-hotel-targeted-by-far-right-rioters-18316836/
That being said, Gary probably knew there would be consequences to what he said due to the institution he works for. A junior intern would lose their job over this, so Gary can’t be above that because of his standing. The BBC state institution with rules on what it’s employees can express politically is looking increasingly outdated now.
All the right wing rag i.e. the sun, daily star, daily mail, kelvin mackenzie all the usual mob.
Tories are designed to turn everyone against each other, especially with the union strikes and then create a divide and run mentality. I've covered it numerous times on here.
If you read some of the media outlets double down news, novara media, wesayenough campaign, even a lot of what Jeremy Corbyn has said is coming true.
Don't evef trust a tory as they always say
-
I’d love to be a fly on the wall when Richard Sharp, who facilitated an £800000 loan for a lying, corrupt prime minister, lectures Gary Lineker on BBC impartiality. This government makes my piss boil with their hypocrisy and bigotry. F*ck*ng scum the lot of them & the sooner they are wiped out the better!
That Braverman thing deserves a special place in hell along with Johnson! :evil: :evil:
Totally agree.. i share your anger.
-
Somewhere, Twitter?, there was an interview with a bloke talking about the words and language used by the likes of Cruella. He referred to a book written in the 20s , maybe someone can point me in the right direction, which was used in 30s Germany and included as a tactic, the use of 3 word slogans
Are modern politicians/advisors reading from the same book
-
Branton
There's a spectrum.
Fascism gains acceptance and responsibility by worming concepts into people's heads
Dehumanisation of "The Other" - e.g. saying we are being invaded by illegal aliens
Delegitimising of dissent - e.g. saying that the leftwing activist "blob" were being disloyal to the nation.
Calling on some mythical national will to take precedence over legal obligations.
All those methods were used in Germany in the early days of Hitler's ascent. All of them were used in the past few weeks by Braverman.
You choose two examples. I e from when Hitler was a nobody, a raving street fighter, a minor joke figure, before he realised he needed to couch his ideas in the sort of language I give examples of above. The other after fascism had triumphed and was out in the open.
You don't actually think that the German people in the 1930s woke up one morning and said "Right. Time to clear out the untermensch" do you?
That came from a decade of ground laying. If normalising the tropes in the examples I give above.
As this is decidedly "Off Topic" I have responded to the above post directed at me in the Lineker thread on the "Off Topic" section of this site.
-
Perhaps we should look to the Jewish community for their reaction. Given the obvious and strong inference GL made in his tweet. This from the Jewish Chronicle today.
Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, wrote in a Times op-ed: “However passionately we feel about important and pressing issues of the day, it seems to me that comparing those current concerns to the almost unimaginable horrors of the Nazi period is wrong.”
Holocaust survivor Agnes Grunwald-Spier MBE had said the Match of the Day host “should be ashamed” for his tweet.
It's got nothing to do with certain Jewish spokespeople. They have an agenda which they plug in their criticism. Did they focus on the boat people in their comments? Hypocrisy perhaps?
This should be in off topic. So you can reply in that BRR.
So what agenda is that.? Don’t like your tone. Care to elaborate please.