BBC. (2 Viewers)

[Cov kid 55]

Oh I read it very carefully - the funny thing is Garry - the great historian - could have mentioned Russia in the 1930s I guess but chose not to - can’t think why

Are you that moron who humiliates himself on drunken wasps every now and again sucking up to that lot?

Well, we were having a half reasonable conversation/debate, but now that you’re seeking to drop the conversation down to a level that your comfortable with, I’m ending the conversation.

 

---

[MalcSB]

Well I'll restrict myself to having a go at a policy that aims to criminilise victims of torture, rape, abuse, systemic violence etc...

Which of those applies to Albania?

 

[David O'Day]

Which of those applies to Albania?

So it's only Albanians then?

 

[Grendel]

Slightly bored now but I do wonder why Rachel Reeves said he used “language I wouldn’t have” - what is she referring to if someone from the court of Saint Garry can answer I’d be happy to look at it

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

While there is some truth about immigration being seen as the Tories trump card, (their only one) its also not about anyone living next door to a foreigner, that just debases the issue to one of racism, which it is not.

We have numerous services that are under funded, NHS, Schools, councils, roads, etc etc, and just allowing free movement, unchecked of people into a country (any country) just continues the cost to the treasury of funding those services.

The overriding question is, if these people are in genuine fear of their lives, why didn't they plead asylum in France?

Under EU law (a treaty we are still bound by) anyone seeking asylum should do so at the first safe haven they come to. That way their numbers are allocated to member countries as per previous existing agreements.

People seeking assylum don't get to choose which country they fancy living in.

You'd think a policy that would reduce a group of people that are net contributors to the country and make up a disproportionately high number of the staff of services like the NHS would be a bit of a stupid policy then wouldn't you?

 

[The Philosopher]

Most people that are speaking up about this are complete hypocrites, including a lot on this thread. It's selective outrage at best. Wouldn't hear a pip about fighting for free speech, or against cancellation. As soon as someone has your viewpoint though - all over it. Why else has it suddenly become an issue? I've been asking for days on the other threads and it is met with crickets.

For the record, I think he should be allowed to speak his mind, but there is so much hypocrisy going on it's funny. Where the fuck were you for the last few years? It's either free speech for all, or it isn't. Same applies to the people trying to cancel Lineker.

I don't think the tory policy is necessarily the right move, but there needs to be a sensible and adult discussion regarding immigration. Genuine refugees should be supported, but many of those in the centre of this discussion are not. That's what's wound up a lot of people over the years, and it's lowered sentiment and sympathy for those that do genuinely need help. The argument seems to be open borders or racist, however, which is one of the reasons why so many of those found screaming about this have been consistently on the losing side of elections/referendums in recent times.

Some of you need to give yourselves a shake.

I agree with much of this. Those on the left often shout loudest.

Having been on the BBC locally and nationally both TV and Radio with an amount of regularity one learns that they are very aware of Ofcom and having political balance. FWIW I found many employees of the BBC to work in a very left leaning Liberal bubble - many staff being recent graduates with “idealist” views. In such bubbles (I’ve done a lot on the uni speaking circuit, much the same) “idealist” views (free stuff for all, open borders, Tories and big businessmen are bad and racist) prevails. They are shocked by things like Brexit votes.

Ofcom dictates that there should be equal amount of airtime given to people on either side of a debate. Programmers have to be mindful of not favouring one side and employ teams to measure the amount of airtime given to those of each side.

Sports presenters, weather presenters, newsreaders etc. should remain neutral. It creates à headache if Lineker becomes à political figure.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Most people that are speaking up about this are complete hypocrites, including a lot on this thread. It's selective outrage at best. Wouldn't hear a pip about fighting for free speech, or against cancellation. As soon as someone has your viewpoint though - all over it. Why else has it suddenly become an issue? I've been asking for days on the other threads and it is met with crickets.

For the record, I think he should be allowed to speak his mind, but there is so much hypocrisy going on it's funny. Where the fuck were you for the last few years? It's either free speech for all, or it isn't. Same applies to the people trying to cancel Lineker.

I don't think the tory policy is necessarily the right move, but there needs to be a sensible and adult discussion regarding immigration. Genuine refugees should be supported, but many of those in the centre of this discussion are not. That's what's wound up a lot of people over the years, and it's lowered sentiment and sympathy for those that do genuinely need help. The argument seems to be open borders or racist, however, which is one of the reasons why so many of those found screaming about this have been consistently on the losing side of elections/referendums in recent times.

Some of you need to give yourselves a shake.

What the fuck

Even if it causes people to shoot up pizza shops because Alex Jones fed them bullshit? Or bully a grieving parent to take their own life?

www.skybluestalk.co.uk

Do you want to discuss boring politics?

It might not be the most popular view, but I really like our electoral system (FPTP). It produces disproportionate winners and losers, but it mostly allows for strong governance. You have the odd decade where parliament is weak (1970s and 2010s). To take 2019 as an example, you’ve had the...

www.skybluestalk.co.uk

Just to prove that I having been saying about letting people have a voice and look stupid for quite some time...

 

[David O'Day]

I agree with much of this. Those on the left often shout loudest.

Having been on the BBC locally and nationally both TV and Radio with an amount of regularity one learns that they are very aware of Ofcom and having political balance. FWIW I found many employees of the BBC to work in a very left leaning Liberal bubble - many staff being recent graduates with “idealist” views. In such bubbles (I’ve done a lot on the uni speaking circuit, much the same) “idealist” views (free stuff for all, open borders, Tories and big businessmen are bad and racist) prevails. They are shocked by things like Brexit votes.

Ofcom dictates that there should be equal amount of airtime given to people on either side of a debate. Programmers have to be mindful of not favouring one side and employ teams to measure the amount of airtime given to those of each side.

Sports presenters, weather presenters, newsreaders etc. should remain neutral. It creates à headache if Lineker becomes à political figure.

Who's WUM account is this?

No of it is real as the poster is thick as pig shit

 

[SkyblueDad]

Big own goal from the brainless Tories trying to make political gain by making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Where they should be making a bit of hay from their bullshit boat policy that has been smashed and wiped off the front pages and Sunak knows it, he’s now panicking and back peddling I bet in behind closed doors he gone bonkers at brain dead Braverman.
The two Tory boy BBC big-wigs will have to resign and somehow the Tories have to try and put the genie back in the bottle. God knows how they will do that.

 

[The Philosopher]

You'd think a policy that would reduce a group of people that are net contributors to the country and make up a disproportionately high number of the staff of services like the NHS would be a bit of a stupid policy then wouldn't you?

Nurses and doctors from India, Canada, Africa, wherever, tend to apply for work visas and background checks. Not many qualified Doctors pay people smugglers and risk their lives coming from France (where they could apply in civic safety).

More immigration is necessary with a declining birth rate.

Open borders is not the answer.

 

[harvey098]

Lineker should just stick to football the overpaid, big eared Leicester prick. No one wants to hear his personal political views. He should keep them to his friends and family and like minded people.

He posted it on his personal social media account where people literally subscribe to hear his views you muppet

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I agree with much of this. Those on the left often shout loudest.

Having been on the BBC locally and nationally both TV and Radio with an amount of regularity one learns that they are very aware of Ofcom and having political balance. FWIW I found many employees of the BBC to work in a very left leaning Liberal bubble - many staff being recent graduates with “idealist” views. In such bubbles (I’ve done a lot on the uni speaking circuit, much the same) “idealist” views (free stuff for all, open borders, Tories and big businessmen are bad and racist) prevails. They are shocked by things like Brexit votes.

Ofcom dictates that there should be equal amount of airtime given to people on either side of a debate. Programmers have to be mindful of not favouring one side and employ teams to measure the amount of airtime given to those of each side.

Sports presenters, weather presenters, newsreaders etc. should remain neutral. It creates à headache if Lineker becomes à political figure.

Well that's bollocks. Griffin/BNP, Farage/UKIP, the ERG nutters. Tea party in the U.S. and the likes of bannon and Alex Jones. The NRA. All very much small organisations that make/made a hell of a lot of noise and get a massively disproportionate amount of airtime for their views.

Those that have a tendency to claim they're the silent majority are often wrong on both counts. if the left shouted loudest wouldn't this vile bill have been ended long before it got to this stage?

 

[PVA]

The BBC now have a bigger problem if they back down. The tail is wagging the dog.

He’s a football pundit.

The BBC is not a commercial enterprise so viewing figures that in all other TV drives advertising revenue are irrelevant.

Give him a slot on question time and get Alex Scott and / or a team of diverse pundits to front Match of the Day.

Letting Lineker call the shots for a public broadcaster paid by licence fee will have repercussions.

Times are hard, TV licence non payment will go up as people struggle with their energy bills.

You can go to prison should you willfully not pay a fine for not having a TV license (technically).

He may win this battle, but he will lose the campaign.

Watch the next few weeks: the hardliners will repeat his salary over and over in the media and whip up public opinion against him. They will link his salary and highlight pensioners struggling with TV license and link heating bills.

Those like Shearer who are supporting him now will be shuffled off too. He’s got too big for his boots has Gary. Clarkson thought he could do and say as he pleased. Lineker will follow a similar path and end up at BT Sport or similar.

That’d be my prediction.

Public opinion is massively in favour of Lineker on this. BBC have embarrassed themselves and made themselves look pathetic.

It'll end just fine for him.

He either ends up back on the BBC with them having made an apology (and possibly a resignation or two), or he'll end up on another channel for even more money.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Nurses and doctors from India, Canada, Africa, wherever, tend to apply for work visas and background checks. Not many qualified Doctors pay people smugglers and risk their lives coming from France (where they could apply in civic safety).

More immigration is necessary with a declining birth rate.

Open borders is not the answer.

And no one is saying open borders is the answer. What an even worse answer is demonising people to the point where you breed resentment that people are put in danger by your rhetioric.

 

[JAM See]

The BBC now have a bigger problem if they back down. The tail is wagging the dog.

He’s a football pundit.

The BBC is not a commercial enterprise so viewing figures that in all other TV drives advertising revenue are irrelevant.

Give him a slot on question time and get Alex Scott and / or a team of diverse pundits to front Match of the Day.

Letting Lineker call the shots for a public broadcaster paid by licence fee will have repercussions.

Times are hard, TV licence non payment will go up as people struggle with their energy bills.

You can go to prison should you willfully not pay a fine for not having a TV license (technically).

He may win this battle, but he will lose the campaign.

Watch the next few weeks: the hardliners will repeat his salary over and over in the media and whip up public opinion against him. They will link his salary and highlight pensioners struggling with TV license and link heating bills.

Those like Shearer who are supporting him now will be shuffled off too. He’s got too big for his boots has Gary. Clarkson thought he could do and say as he pleased. Lineker will follow a similar path and end up at BT Sport or similar.

That’d be my prediction.

That's the bit that surprises me (the bit that Lineker is bigger than the BBC).

There are loads of equally talented presenters out there, who could fill his boots in no time at all.

The story as I see it is that the BBC is bigger than Lineker, but the BBC is quite rightly open to questions about impartiality itself with the appointment of Sharp.

Hopefully this little brouhaha will shine a light on the bigger issue...

...The appointment of Richard Sharp by Boris Johnson. That's where the story needs to go.

 

[The Philosopher]

Public opinion is massively in favour of Lineker on this. BBC have embarrassed themselves and made themselves look pathetic.

It'll end just fine for him.

He either ends up back on the BBC with them having made an apology (and possibly a resignation or two), or he'll end up on another channel for even more money.

First of all, I’m all for good clean debate. I totally understand you view and position.

Social media had à polarising effect.

Public opinion amongst those who, say, follow Lineker, Owen Jones, read Guardian articles etc. will be more in favour of Lineker and their Twitter feeds and such will seem that way.

Amongst those who follow Boris Johnson, GB News etc . will have timelines that “show public opinion” against Lineker.

It’s the curse of social media. Everyone in their own echochamber.

 

[harvey098]

For the record, I think he should be allowed to speak his mind, but there is so much hypocrisy going on it's funny. Where the fuck were you for the last few years? It's either free speech for all, or it isn't. Same applies to the people trying to cancel Lineker.

Forgive me, which are BBC employees have been “cancelled” in the “last few years” that we’re supposed to be outraged about?

 

[The Philosopher]

That's the bit that surprises me (the bit that Lineker is bigger than the BBC).

There are loads of equally talented presenters out there, who could fill his boots in no time at all.

The story as I see it is that the BBC is bigger than Lineker, but the BBC is quite rightly open to questions about impartiality itself with the appointment of Sharp.

Hopefully this little brouhaha will shine a light on the bigger issue...

...The appointment of Richard Sharp by Boris Johnson. That's where the story needs to go.

If / when Starmer gets in he will appoint a Labour supporting BBC Chief. It’s how it works.

 

[JAM See]

Forgive me, which are BBC employees have been “cancelled” in the “last few years” that we’re supposed to be outraged about?

"Now then, now then".

Fixed that for you.

 

[PVA]

First of all, I’m all for good clean debate. I totally understand you view and position.

Social media had à polarising effect.

Public opinion amongst those who, say, follow Lineker, Owen Jones, read Guardian articles etc. will be more in favour of Lineker and their Twitter feeds and such will seem that way.

Amongst those who follow Boris Johnson, GB News etc . will have timelines that “show public opinion” against Lineker.

It’s the curse of social media. Everyone in their own echochamber.

No it's not a case of my twitter feed being in support of Lineker and skewing my view. The public is on Lineker's side.

Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker | YouGov

The public holds a favourable view of the presenter

yougov.co.uk

By 53% to 27%, Britons say the BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker​

 

[JAM See]

If / when Starmer gets in he will appoint a Labour supporting BBC Chief. It’s how it works.

It's wrong though. There should at least be a veneer of independence over the appointment of whoever runs the BBC.

 

[napolimp]

I agree with much of this. Those on the left often shout loudest.

Having been on the BBC locally and nationally both TV and Radio with an amount of regularity one learns that they are very aware of Ofcom and having political balance. FWIW I found many employees of the BBC to work in a very left leaning Liberal bubble - many staff being recent graduates with “idealist” views. In such bubbles (I’ve done a lot on the uni speaking circuit, much the same) “idealist” views (free stuff for all, open borders, Tories and big businessmen are bad and racist) prevails. They are shocked by things like Brexit votes.

Ofcom dictates that there should be equal amount of airtime given to people on either side of a debate. Programmers have to be mindful of not favouring one side and employ teams to measure the amount of airtime given to those of each side.

Sports presenters, weather presenters, newsreaders etc. should remain neutral. It creates à headache if Lineker becomes à political figure.

By this do you mean those on the left often shout loudest, and those on the right often shout loudest, and those in the centre often shout loudest, and those who shout loudest are often the ones shouting loudest, and if you shout loudest you're the one shouting loudest?

What a stunningly astute observation you've made. Have you considered applying for funding to further develop your findings?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Who's WUM account is this?

No of it is real as the poster is thick as pig shit

I believe it's true, he's involved with the SDP

 

[harvey098]

"Now then, now then".

Fixed that for you.

He was “cancelled” for far more than expressing an opinion. I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick mate.

 

[The Philosopher]

And no one is saying open borders is the answer. What an even worse answer is demonising people to the point where you breed resentment that people are put in danger by your rhetioric.

*there are those that campaign for open borders. Not saying you are*

People crossing on small boats needs to stop. It’s dangerous for the migrants and those that arrive are often exploited by gangs. I hope we agree on this.

Political parties in fear of the next election often try to outflank their rivals by doubling down on “rival” policies. Braverman is wary of Farage (and him splitting Tory vote) etc. and had gone off compass. The Rwanda policy is frankly ridiculous, not even Farage would seriously endorse this.

Demonising migrants by calling them invaders is also short sighted. This kind of language only appeals to the fringes and puts off the sensible middle who think migrants should be treated humanely but don’t endorse dinghy crossings.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I believe it's true, he's involved with the SDP

Christ. At least we should be grateful for small mercies it's not ukip I guess.

 

[The Philosopher]

It's wrong though. There should at least be a veneer of independence over the appointment of whoever runs the BBC.

That’s what Ofcom should be for. Which is why a sports presenter becoming a political commentator with huge reach (partly due to his BBC role) becomes a headache.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

Personally, I think if anyone noticed any similarities between ourselves and Germany's descent into fascism, they should just not say anything as everything is bound to be okay...

If we were getting a bit too nazi-like, I'm sure the vast swathes of people that can't even read a tweet properly would notice and protect us.

All Gary Gestapo has to do is justify his comments regarding 1930s Germany and the similarity to the current UK govt by giving us specifics and he'll win me over, rather than just come out with this statement . Then we can all say " You know what, he's right."
Looking forward to it. I've got all week..

 

[The Philosopher]

Bringing this back sky blue, years ago there was a football pundit who went political / conspiracy theory and ended up with a cult-like following.

Now. THIS IS AN EXTREME EXAMPLE (and I’m not comparing to Lineker but just to illustrate) and more for the sake of satire:

David Icke.

Just bringing it back to CCFC related.

 

[SkyblueDad]

Public opinion is massively in favour of Lineker on this. BBC have embarrassed themselves and made themselves look pathetic.

It'll end just fine for him.

He either ends up back on the BBC with them having made an apology (and possibly a resignation or two), or he'll end up on another channel for even more money.

Like him or not Gary Lineker has become a bit of an icon, a national treasure as they say and again Tories have dropped a big bollock, blokes like him through football he’s been doing that for years now, great player in his day, comes across as a decent guy for all I know he might not be, football wise he’s one of England s greats, add to that the ladies like him, I was in the company of four couples dinner time and all the ladies none of them what I’d call football fans like him & can’t see what the fuss is about, another headache for Sunak
Hardly anyone would have heard or read Linekers tweet had it not been for the Tory influence on those two big noises at the Beeb, now the whole of Britain AND beyond have.

 

[PVA]

All Gary Gestapo has to do is justify his comments regarding 1930s Germany and the similarity to the current UK govt by giving us specifics and he'll win me over, rather than just come out with this statement . Then we can all say " You know what, he's right."
Looking forward to it. I've got all week..

This is all the justification you need:

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Forgive me, which are BBC employees have been “cancelled” in the “last few years” that we’re supposed to be outraged about?

You're just qualifying my point on selective outrage and hypocrisy here. The world is bigger than just the BBC... No one can honestly say 'you know what, the reason I didn't speak up about free speech and cancellation before, was because that person didn't work for the BBC'.

Come on.

 

[oakey]

As a genuine point of interest can anyone point me in the direction of anyone we're likely to have heard of that advocates open borders?
The phrase seems nonsensical to me.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

This is all the justification you need:

No it isn't.

 

[PVA]

No it isn't.

You don't think that sounds like something that could be said in 1930s Germany?

Ok.