Gary Lineker

[G STAR RAM]

24 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Opened up a bit of a can of worms this. They've let people such as Lord Sugar speak openly about their politics with no issue, but have clamped down on Lineker. Either all of it is okay, or none of it is. They've managed it the worst way possible here. That being said, it is generally unwise to invoke Godwin's law if you are trying to make a nuanced point. 

Sugar is neither and employee or contractor of the BBC so I'm really not sure why people are making this point?

He appears in a show that is aired on the BBC but is not produced by it.

So unless your point is that nobody with a political view can ever appear on the BBC, it really doesnt make any sense to compare it with the Lineker situation.

[RoyMac5]

22 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

Stopping the boats, or reducing them, would involve supplying immigration and border services with the resources, manpower and skills to deal with immigrants in a timely fashion. But that's not as punchy as coming up with a nonsense message that is legally, practically and morally incompatible with reality is it?

I'm straying in to politics too much here so might fall foul of the mods but I don't really care at this point.

Block me, mute me, whatever. This government is vile and I pitty anyone being strung along by this hateful, unworkable and obviously not happening stop the boats nonsense.

Rant over. I'll leave it there.

Apparently Lineker is making this country look bad. ?

[ram59]

Does this mean that I can watch match of the day live now? I usually record it and FF through the rubbish that Lineker and co spout.

[G STAR RAM]

9 minutes ago, Blondest Goat said:

What a pathetic comment.  

Some people come across like they just can't bare anyone who shows any compassion or humanity.  They can't possibly believe that anyone does anything that's not entirely motivated by self interest and must therefore be a hypocrite.

What miserable lives they must lead.

Got a lot of time for people who show genuine compassion.

The sort that do it without the need to tell everyone what they are doing.

The sort that don't sit there in their ivory towers telling everyone else how to lead their lives.

I'm calling Gary Lineker a hypocrite because he is preaching about helping people out whilst arguing over £5m in tax.

You may be taken in by him and his ilk, I'm not.

[therealhantsram]

48 minutes ago, cstand said:

Most celebrities will side with what will keep them in a future job they know how the cancel culture works in this country. 

This is why no one stood up for Matt Le Tisser, Charlie Nicholas and Phil Thompson.

 

 

 

Agree with your first point, but ? disagree with the 2nd.

Going on strike for a colleague not likely to keep them in a job. Entirely the opposite.

[therealhantsram]

 

[Andicis]

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

Sugar is neither and employee or contractor of the BBC so I'm really not sure why people are making this point?

He appears in a show that is aired on the BBC but is not produced by it.

So unless your point is that nobody with a political view can ever appear on the BBC, it really doesnt make any sense to compare it with the Lineker situation.

I think it's entirely reasonable to even hold people who appear on shows aired by the BBC to the same standard. There should be a consistent standard held. 

[Gaspode]

A lot of folk are claiming that this is because the BBC (prompted by the government) don't like his politics - while that may be true with some in their management structure, the underlying issue here is that Lineker has brought the organisation unwanted publicity via his tweets (exacerbated by the BBC repsonse).

Most large companies will have policies stating that their employees shouldn't do anything that may damage the standing of the company (as an example, I have to do an annual online course reminding me of the ethics and behaviours that are expected of me by my employer) - the underlying message is "Don't do anything might might mean you're on the front-page of the papers".

In Lineker's case, he's the face of football on the Beeb - that position carries a fairly weighty responsibility to always behave in a way that protects the BBC from undue criticism - and the implication of that is that he should keep his rather big gob shut on matters such of this while he's still taking the millions from the Beeb....

[Carl Sagan]

4 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

We can disagree on this, no problem. My question is, putting aside personal feelings, do you think his tweet and subsequent reluctance to take it back would justify a sacking from the BBC?

The BBC journos I know bang their heads on their desk every time Lineker goes political, because they know it makes their job a million times harder to appear politically neutral.

It also means people will be let go as cuts are made, because (as Gary well knows but doesn't care) it adds to the licence fee boycott, meaning less money goes into the BBC's coffers.

Jonathan Agnew nailed it when he pleaded with Lineker to stop, but the tweet has now been taken down so here's a screengrab:

So, yes, Lineker should clearly have been sacked, and long ago, for his political tweets. Just as Sugar should have been the same. You cannot work in this high-profile way for the BBC and openly express political views. Those are just the rules.

You will be too young to know, but when the BBC first picked Lineker to present Match of the Day, it was frankly bizarre. There had never been a worse presenter on TV, it was laughable and embarrassing. He was completely wooden and unnatural and had no idea what to say and do. But they stuck with him and worked with him over the years, until he finally became a decent sports presenter. But they made him and he has the Beeb to totally thank for giving him this extraordinarily lucrative career (on which he tries to avoid paying tax). He should be incredibly grateful to them for giving him a chance and standing by him during the period of ridicule, but instead he continually kicks them in the teeth. He's only in it for himself.

 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Carl Sagan

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

I think it's entirely reasonable to even hold people who appear on shows aired by the BBC to the same standard. There should be a consistent standard held. 

So you'd literally have nobody on the BBC that had ever spoken a political view? Dont think there would be too many programmes to air if that was the case.

I think there is a quite clear distinction between people who represent the BBC and people that just appear on it.

I very much doubt that people who just appear on BBC shows are ever informed of their guidelines.

[Bob The Badger]

36 minutes ago, Kathcairns said:

Why does slotting the equaliser in against germany give him the right to call people that want the boats stopped nazis. He has got the money that it does not make any difference to him, waiting lists, housing ,energy bills.

He didn't call them Nazis. Let's at least try and stick to facts when they are so easy to access.

[inter politics]

13 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Apparently Lineker is making this country look bad. ?

Okay John

[inter politics]

Wow, people in a public facing position having an opinion, shocking isn't it..

[Andicis]

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

So you'd literally have nobody on the BBC that had ever spoken a political view? Dont think there would be too many programmes to air if that was the case.

I think there is a quite clear distinction between people who represent the BBC and people that just appear on it.

I very much doubt that people who just appear on BBC shows are ever informed of their guidelines.

Maybe a rule for people who make regular appearances such as Lord Sugar who has his own show. It's clearly not the same thing as BBC news bringing in an expert to speak on a topic once. 

Irrespective, skipping the semantic argument (really boring) my original point, with a different example of someone like Jeremy Clarkson who quite regularly provided political views that people would find offensive was never dealt with in this way. My original point was that they needed to have been consistent and I would say that I don't think they have been .

 

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, Andicis said:

Maybe a rule for people who make regular appearances such as Lord Sugar who has his own show. It's clearly not the same thing as BBC news bringing in an expert to speak on a topic once. 

Irrespective, skipping the semantic argument (really boring) my original point, with a different example of someone like Jeremy Clarkson who quite regularly provided political views that people would find offensive was never dealt with in this way. My original point was that they needed to have been consistent and I would say that I don't think they have been .

The issue here is that Lord Sugar does not have his own BBC show, he makes a show for MGM Television, who in turn sell the show to the BBC.

I'd imagine if the BBC tried to tell Lord Sugar what he can and can't say, he'd rightly tell them to sling their hook, or if the BBC felt so strongly about it they could stop buying his show.

[nottingram]

6 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

So you'd literally have nobody on the BBC that had ever spoken a political view? Dont think there would be too many programmes to air if that was the case.

I think there is a quite clear distinction between people who represent the BBC and people that just appear on it.

I very much doubt that people who just appear on BBC shows are ever informed of their guidelines.

but the very fact the point about Sugar has been made (and not just here, I’ve seen it in loads of places) shows that the disassociation between him and the BBC simply isn’t there, whether it should be or otherwise.

If the perception is that he is a BBC employee the “well actually he isn’t” argument doesn’t really hold much weight, even if it is factually correct as I am sure it is. 

Ultimately it just highlights the can of worms that they have opened, and they really should have just dealt with it relatively quietly as indeed it appeared they had done until yesterday evening.

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

25 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Sugar is neither and employee or contractor of the BBC so I'm really not sure why people are making this point?

He appears in a show that is aired on the BBC but is not produced by it.

So unless your point is that nobody with a political view can ever appear on the BBC, it really doesnt make any sense to compare it with the Lineker situation.

How about Andrew Neil? Treated a bit differently than Lineker.

[Carl Sagan]

4 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

He didn't call them Nazis. Let's at least try and stick to facts when they are so easy to access.

Lineker wrote "in language not dissimilar to used by Germany in the 1930s". Hitler became Chancellor in 1933, heading up the National Socialists aka Nazis, so the reference by Lineker was a clear allusion to Nazi Germany.

[Ram-Alf]

Well well well...BBC ?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/30/naga-munchetty-bbc-reverses-decision-to-censure-presenter

[nottingram]

3 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Lineker wrote "in language not dissimilar to used by Germany in the 1930s". Hitler became Chancellor in 1933, heading up the National Socialists aka Nazis, so the reference by Lineker was a clear allusion to Nazi Germany.

So you agree he didn’t call them Nazis then