Gary Lineker

[bcnram]

22 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I had exactly the same conversation with my wife yesterday.

It makes no sense at all. You have somehow managed to escape with your family from a truly desperate situation and find yourselves in a wealthy Western European country (France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium etc) so what do you do next? Pay a small fortune and risk the lives of your family to make a perilous sea crossing to another Western European country. 
 

 

Maybe when we were going round the World sticking our flag up in other peoples countries and teaching them English, we should have taught them French instead - if only we knew!! ?

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

There are two key elements here in my opinion.

1. The only reason this is even an issue is because the government vomited out a disgusting policy that they already know will not survive first contact with reality. 

2. The 'impartial' state broadcaster has treated Lineker more harshly than others who have put their opinions out in the open whilst working on the BBC, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the senior levels of the BBC are populated by Tories.

Had Lineker come out in support of the small boat dirge I suspect absolutely nothing would have happened.

[PistoldPete]

55 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

There's a lot of competing thoughts in this thread. 

Some people seem to be happy because they don't like Lineker, so less commentary from him is good. 

Some people don't want any commentary, so everyone walking out in sympathy is good. 

Some people question his moral position, which is a legitimate point, but doesn't change the argument about what is acceptable and what isn't. 

Some people are questioning whether a presenter should be impartial or not. I'd argue it isn't possible to be 100% impartial, in the same way that we can't have a conversation about covid, or Shamima Begum, or food bank sponsorship, without there being some politics involved. You can't talk about big stuff totally neutrally. 

My personal opinion is, as long as presenters don't talk about dehumanising people, as long as we're challenging authority and not challenging the rights of people to exist, I'm not against them having an opinion. 

Some of the conversations leave an unpleasant taste in my mouth, but I'm aware that it is legitimate to talk about these things. Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda seems inhuman to me, but there's a legitimate conversation to be had. If you're talking about torpedoing the boats in the channel, gtfo. 

And I'm not hypocritical about the problem on the British left regarding antisemitism. There's a problem in left wing politics with anti Jewish sentiment, but it's not possible to have a proper conversation about Israel without the mud being slung. Questioning the role of Israel in World Politics is acceptable. Denying Jewish people a right to exist, or indiscriminately demonising a whole group of people, gtfo. 

Nobody is saying Lineker cannot have opinions. Just that he should not be pushing those political opinions to 8m twitter followers. And it isn't even that he has to be 100% impartial. He could avoid being intemperate though, comparisons with Nazi Germany are way over the top. Apparently someone among BBC news staff has called the Tories racists and facists. Sunak and Braverman racists... er spot the deliberate error? The problem at the BBC is that it is so caught up in its own media bubble that it just cannot understand how biased it is.  

 

 

[TuffLuff]

[GboroRam]

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

Nobody is saying Lineker cannot have opinions. Just that he should not be pushing those political opinions to 8m twitter followers. And it isn't even that he has to be 100% impartial. He could avoid being intemperate though, comparisons with Nazi Germany are way over the top. Apparently someone among BBC news staff has called the Tories racists and facists. Sunak and Braverman racists... er spot the deliberate error? The problem at the BBC is that it is so caught up in its own media bubble that it just cannot understand how biased it is.  

 

 

But has been pointed out, Lineker said the language used was similar to the language used by the nazis in the 30s. 

Andrew Bridgen made comments that compared the vaccine rollout to the holocaust, with a direct comparison that it was the worst thing since that happened. Similar cases, but to look closer, Lineker is only talking about language used. 

And for i-Ram, I don't have any direct quotes for you, and I'm not that interested to go looking. But I can provide some context from the twitter account from the Auschwitz Memorial. 

[PistoldPete]

5 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

But has been pointed out, Lineker said the language used was similar to the language used by the nazis in the 30s. 

Andrew Bridgen made comments that compared the vaccine rollout to the holocaust, with a direct comparison that it was the worst thing since that happened. Similar cases, but to look closer, Lineker is only talking about language used. 

And for i-Ram, I don't have any direct quotes for you, and I'm not that interested to go looking. But I can provide some context from the twitter account from the Auschwitz Memorial. 

And Brigden was suspended wasn't he? And he didn't say the Holocaust was similar.. he implied it was worse. And who said Brigden had a duty to be impartial? Not defending him by the way he's an idiot. 

[Tyler Durden]

25 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

There are two key elements here in my opinion.

1. The only reason this is even an issue is because the government vomited out a disgusting policy that they already know will not survive first contact with reality. 

2. The 'impartial' state broadcaster has treated Lineker more harshly than others who have put their opinions out in the open whilst working on the BBC, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the senior levels of the BBC are populated by Tories.

Had Lineker come out in support of the small boat dirge I suspect absolutely nothing would have happened.

Think you're oversimplifying matters by implying in point 1 that Lineker or whoever is justified in making outspoken comments about the government policy as it's that atrocious (in your opinion), which then attempts to reinforce your first point.

The key element is really that Lineker has overstepped his mark in criticising government policy whether it be about immigration or baked beans and that contravenes the BBCs impartiality standards.

The subject matter is an irrelevance, he shouldn't be doing it full stop. He is fully aware of his Twitter following and what impact his opinion would have, likewise the outcome of yesterday when colleague's were refusing to present BBC programmes, which is why he should have been even more mindful when expressing his opinions which criticise government policy. 

[Duracell]

Many people complaining about a liberal metropolitan elite controlling the media, ignoring the fact that large media organisations with increasingly large links to the political party in charge - in particular, party donors - portray the government favourably, with criticism from employees silenced.

Anyway, enough about the book I'm reading about the Nazi Party's use of the media in their rise to power. Linekar obviously has no idea what he's talking about.

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

25 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Think you're oversimplifying matters by implying in point 1 that Lineker or whoever is justified in making outspoken comments about the government policy as it's that atrocious (in your opinion), which then attempts to reinforce your first point.

The key element is really that Lineker has overstepped his mark in criticising government policy whether it be about immigration or baked beans and that contravenes the BBCs impartiality standards.

The subject matter is an irrelevance, he shouldn't be doing it full stop. He is fully aware of his Twitter following and what impact his opinion would have, likewise the outcome of yesterday when colleague's were refusing to present BBC programmes, which is why he should have been even more mindful when expressing his opinions which criticise government policy. 

I think you are oversimplifying matters to be honest. This is no longer a single issue of should Lineker have tweeted what he did.

The BBC have mishandled this so badly it has now become a 'how much influence does the government, to which multiple senior figures in the BBC are affiliated, have over our state broadcaster' issue.

The can of worms is open and it doesn't look like anyone is going to be able to get the lid back on any time soon.

Edited March 12, 2023 by JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta

[Tyler Durden]

3 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

I think you are oversimplifying matters to be honest. This is no longer a single issue of should Lineker have tweeted what he did.

The BBC have mishandled this so badly it has now become a 'how much influence does the government, to which multiple senior figures in the BBC are affiliated, have over our state broadcaster' issue.

The can of worms is open and it doesn't look like anyone is going to be able to get the lid back on any time soon.

The focus of this debate is ever shifting, now it's moving to the BBCs alleged mishandling of this case.

All of this episode is root caused by Linekers unwillingness not to post content which breaches the BBCs impartiality guidelines, everything else which follows is a consequence of Linekers originals actions. 

Lineker isn't daft, he must have known what the outcomes would be when (a) he posted that Tweet and (b) the repercussions when the BBC inevitably had to remove him from his position when he refused to retract or backtrack on his inappropriate behaviour. 

[Bob The Badger]

11 hours ago, 1of4 said:

Great MOTD tonight, no commentary just crowd noise. Maybe we should also scrap the multi camera coverage and go with a single camera that tracks the flow of play. That will give us that actually being there match experience.  Why not go all in by sticking a microphone randomly somewhere in the ground so we can listen to someone moan about the ref or the failings of their star player not scoring an easy chance.

Pah, why would we want exprofessionals giving their opinions about a game of football. Especially when we all know more about the game than anyone who as played the game at a high level.

I only got half way through the Leicester game and turned it off. 

[nottingram]

8 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

The focus of this debate is ever shifting, now it's moving to the BBCs alleged mishandling of this case.

All of this episode is root caused by Linekers unwillingness not to post content which breaches the BBCs impartiality guidelines, everything else which follows is a consequence of Linekers originals actions. 

Lineker isn't daft, he must have known what the outcomes would be when (a) he posted that Tweet and (b) the repercussions when the BBC inevitably had to remove him from his position when he refused to retract or backtrack on his inappropriate behaviour. 

If you had to guess, why do you think the episode appeared to be resolved until Friday night at which point it blew up again, if the situation was as cut and dried as you suggest?

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

1 minute ago, Tyler Durden said:

The focus of this debate is ever shifting, now it's moving to the BBCs alleged mishandling of this case.

All of this episode is root caused by Linekers unwillingness not to post content which breaches the BBCs impartiality guidelines, everything else which follows is a consequence of Linekers originals actions. 

Lineker isn't daft, he must have known what the outcomes would be when (a) he posted that Tweet and (b) the repercussions when the BBC inevitably had to remove him from his position when he refused to retract or backtrack on his inappropriate behaviour. 

I agree Lineker isn't daft. He will have seen the likes of Andrew Neil pushing political opinions through The Spectator when he was working with the BBC, or the likes of Chris Packham using his platform on the BBC to push his agenda. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that Andrew Neil especially has ever been impartial. His bias has been on full display for a long time.

If the BBC want to take the high road on this then they need to address the fact that they have been woefully inconsistent in upholding these regulations.

It looks like the BBC are cherry picking which opinions to take action against, which then leads to the question of why?

[alexxxxx]

21 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

 

Lineker isn't daft, he must have known what the outcomes would be when (a) he posted that Tweet and (b) the repercussions when the BBC inevitably had to remove him from his position when he refused to retract or backtrack on his inappropriate behaviour. 

He might not have done, he frequently posts political stuff.

For me it's no coincidence he's been brought in to the culture war stuff.

The DG of the BBC was smirking and smiling when talking about the Linekar situation. This is directed by the top.

Edited March 12, 2023 by alexxxxx

[i-Ram]

1 hour ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

There are two key elements here in my opinion.

1. The only reason this is even an issue is because the government vomited out a disgusting policy that they already know will not survive first contact with reality. 

2. The 'impartial' state broadcaster has treated Lineker more harshly than others who have put their opinions out in the open whilst working on the BBC, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the senior levels of the BBC are populated by Tories.

Had Lineker come out in support of the small boat dirge I suspect absolutely nothing would have happened.

I respect your opinion. But (I think) you are relatively young.

Irrespective of how disgusting the policy might be (and again that is a personal opinion), Lineker has made a crass comment regarding it, comparing it similar ‘in language’ to 1930’s Germany. Not only is that insensitive to the Jewish community in particular, I think many who lost friends and family in the subsequent war have found it a pretty offensive comparison too. The proposed policy, and even the language used, is nothing like what was fermenting in 1930’s Germany. My opinion, again for what it is worth, is that Lineker should be free to say what he thinks, but not without consequences to his contractual relationship with the BBC, and that on this matter in particular he has been offensive to a great many.

I am still waiting for even one poster on here to give me examples of language being used by politicians over here that are not too dissimilar to that being used by Adolf and his cohorts in the lead up to WW2.

[PistoldPete]

24 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

I only got half way through the Leicester game and turned it off. 

I enjoyed it although for some reason the BBC decided not to call it MOTD  and didn't play the theme music.

It will take some getting used to and I think the captions could have been clearer.. sometimes you can miss who it was who scored because they randomly flash the name and then remove it.

In the absence of Lineker, this pundit believes that VAR seems to have re-invented the definition of handball. It used to be deliberate handball that was penalised now anything that hits the arm is penalised. 

  

[i-Ram]

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

But has been pointed out, Lineker said the language used was similar to the language used by the nazis in the 30s. 

Andrew Bridgen made comments that compared the vaccine rollout to the holocaust, with a direct comparison that it was the worst thing since that happened. Similar cases, but to look closer, Lineker is only talking about language used. 

And for i-Ram, I don't have any direct quotes for you, and I'm not that interested to go looking. But I can provide some context from the twitter account from the Auschwitz Memorial. 

Nauseating deflection. 

[cstand]

 

 

[ariotofmyown]

6 minutes ago, cstand said:

 

 

I never watched it, but almost did to see what was mentioned and how they did it. I imagine lots of people did the same.

[FindernRam]

2 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

You have somehow managed to escape with your family from a truly desperate situation
 

 

If it was like that I would be more sympathetic, but in all of the coverage the vast majority of people on the boats are young men. Not families. Also it appears that a huge percentage are from Albania (a European country last time I looked).

In pure logistics terms; legal or not we had 500,000 net immigrants last year. That is effectively 5 new towns the size of Chester. There has to be a limit.