Gary Lineker

[Andicis]

8 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

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.

The bottom is what I would suggest. The BBC should advise their standards. Sugar can say no, but then the BBC shouldn't buy it. That's the entire point that I'm making. There isn't an issue here. That is entirely doable. 

[Kathcairns]

15 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.

No, he referred to the 1930's germany who wanted to get rid of the undesirables and jewish people. I always took that to be the nazi regime, i must have been wrong then?

[Sparkle]

In this country everyone is entitled to have a viewpoint because we live in a democracy whilst currently in Ukraine people are fighting and dying for that very right to have an opinion. Lineker can have his opinion on anything as can everyone else but you can’t expect to keep your employment when you breech the imposed guidelines and every year hundreds if not thousands of people in this country lose their employment due to what they say and do.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

20 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

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.

 

I disagree, but I don’t really have a problem with your position if you think Sugar should have been sacked also. Fair enough.

[bcnram]

Sack him, sack Wright, sack Shearer, sack any others in football focus etc. programmes who refuse to work. The programmes need refreshing anyway. The BBC cannot and should not back down in this. He thinks he is untouchable, time to cancel his contract. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

17 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.

This would be the logical conclusion, yes. Those calling 'hypocrite' should surely see this. That's why upholding some mythical standard of impartiality is obviously nonsense. 

 

[Ram-Alf]

8 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

In this country everyone is entitled to have a viewpoint because we live in a democracy whilst currently in Ukraine people are fighting and dying for that very right to have an opinion. Lineker can have his opinion on anything as can everyone else but you can’t expect to keep your employment when you breech the imposed guidelines and every year hundreds if not thousands of people in this country lose their employment due to what they say and do.

Spot on.

The BBC are independent and impartial ?, Until the home secretary introduces her legislation on small refugee boats crossing the channel, GL then uses his twitter platform to have a dig.

I firmly believe someone in Government told someone at the Beeb to reign him in, We're now at an impasse it would seem, Lineker not retreating and the BBC in a whole so big of their own making a huge humble pie would fill it.  

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

That isn't an answer to the question posed - what is wrong with comparing 'speech' by the current Govt with 'speech' from the German Govt in the 1930s?

Juxtaposed with everything else he says everything is wrong with it. It is beyond disingenuous to pretend otherwise. 

Edited March 11, 2023 by PistoldPete

[AndyinLiverpool]

8 minutes ago, bcnram said:

Sack him, sack Wright, sack Shearer, sack any others in football focus etc. programmes who refuse to work. The programmes need refreshing anyway. The BBC cannot and should not back down in this. He thinks he is untouchable, time to cancel his contract. 

He doesn't think he's untouchable. He thinks he has a right to express his opinions.

[IslandExile]

28 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.

Exactly.

Linekar was comparing the language being used - and he's exactly correct.

Those arguing against Linekar - including the Home Secretary - are extrapolating this to a ridiculous degree saying that he was comparing it to the atrocities and to the Holocaust.

I know folks on here see things as "black and white" ? but there are more subtleties than that, shades of grey, degrees of action.

The government is using language designed to make people feel negatively towards refugees.

[IslandExile]

17 minutes ago, Kathcairns said:

No, he referred to the 1930's germany who wanted to get rid of the undesirables and jewish people. I always took that to be the nazi regime, i must have been wrong then?

He referred to the language used.

[Bob The Badger]

15 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.

Hitler was a vegetarian, so he was clearly attacking vegetarians too.

 

 

[RoyMac5]

8 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Juxtaposed with everything else he says everything is wrong with it. It is beyond disingenuous to pretend otherwise. 

Which bit:

"...Lineker, an ex-England striker who presents the BBC’s flagship soccer coverage on TV, was warned by the broadcaster to respect its social media guidelines after he lashed out at Braverman on Twitter.

 

“Good heavens, this is beyond awful,” he tweeted over a video of Braverman explaining her plan, in his latest broadside against the Conservatives’ immigration policies.

“There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries,” Lineker noted.

“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, and I’m out of order?”

 

Braverman has often been accused herself of using inflammatory language over the migration issue, as the Conservatives try to restore their weak standing in opinion polls ahead of local elections in May.

“I’m obviously disappointed that he should attempt to equate our measures with 1930s Germany,” she told BBC radio, vowing to be “honest” with the British public.

“I don’t think that’s an appropriate way of framing the debate.”

“And if that makes some people feel uncomfortable, then you know that we can have a debate about the substance of the measures,” she said, after claiming that “billions” of migrants were “eager” to come to Britain."

From The Times of Israel

Edited March 11, 2023 by RoyMac5

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

17 minutes ago, bcnram said:

Sack him, sack Wright, sack Shearer, sack any others in football focus etc. programmes who refuse to work. The programmes need refreshing anyway. The BBC cannot and should not back down in this. He thinks he is untouchable, time to cancel his contract. 

If the BBC were even remotely consistent in their application of these regulations you'd have a point. But they aren't.

The mistake Lineker made was punching upwards in a world where punching down is increasingly the done thing.

Edited March 11, 2023 by JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta

[Mucker1884]

By Jove!  I've got it!

Why the hell didn't I think of this last night!

Chris Martin could do MOTD!  How bloody fantastic would that be!

 

Right... how do I start a new thread... 

[Kathcairns]

8 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

He referred to the language used.

Same thing to me, it was the nazls that brought in that policy, well before the war started.

[Gaspode]

4 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

By Jove!  I've got it!

Why the hell didn't I think of this last night!

Chris Martin could do MOTD!  How bloody fantastic would that be!

 

Right... how do I start a new thread... 

He'll have to join the queue behind Graham Norton, Alan Carr & Michael MacIntyre....

[Tyler Durden]

19 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

He doesn't think he's untouchable. He thinks he has a right to express his opinions.

And the BBC, as his employer, also have the right to advise any of their employees when they are making open statements that would be seen to contravene their impartiality standards - a fact which a few posters appear unable to appreciate or accept without throwing in the usual whatabouttery smokescreen. 

It cuts both ways. 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Tyler Durden

[RoyMac5]

4 minutes ago, Kathcairns said:

Same thing to me, it was the nazls that brought in that policy, well before the war started.

If you want to call this Govt Nazi's that's fair enough.

[Andicis]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

If you want to call this Govt Nazi's that's fair enough.

That is not fair enough though is it Roy. That is a ridiculous thing to say.