Scrutable

It's all fun and games until someone points out the similarities between the government's rhetoric and that of a certain A. Hitler. Hang on, let's call him Adolf H, less obvious that way.

This is turning into an absolute disaster for the BBC, will it spread beyond football?

Be interesting to see if it gets as far as fans chanting. Obviously that can be edited out on highlights, but not on the live games

I mean TBF we can't have the guy whose job primarily consists of discussing Spurs alarming drop in form breaching the BBCs impeccable reputation for impartiality.

Fortunately the actual political reporters are always completely beyond reproach.

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/st ... wsrc%5Etfw

Trinucleus wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 11, 2023 11:19 am

Be interesting to see if it gets as far as fans chanting. Obviously that can be edited out on highlights, but not on the live games

Do the BBC broadcast any live games?

Grumble wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 11, 2023 11:21 am

Do the BBC broadcast any live games?

On radio they do.

Though I'm not clear how much that will be affected if at all.

Mrs Y made an interesting point: if other freelance presenters and regular guests are stopping work in support of the principle that Lineker can say what he likes on Twitter, what if he'd had a David Icke breakdown and started tweeting anti-vax stuff? To what extent is their defiance due to what he said rather than purely his right to say it?

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:04 pm

Mrs Y made an interesting point: if other freelance presenters and regular guests are stopping work in support of the principle that Lineker can say what he likes on Twitter, what if he'd had a David Icke breakdown and started tweeting anti-vax stuff? To what extent is their defiance due to what he said rather than purely his right to say it?

Why is that an issue? There's a massive difference between someone, campaigning for human rights and humane treatment of people and someone trying to kill people with far right propaganda.

This is a moral issue, not some "freedom of speech" political debate.

There certainly is a moral issue, and I've no doubt everyone supporting him agree wholeheartedly with what he said, but the suspension of Lineker is about political impartiality, not about the Tories inability to see they're utterly evil. Not what he said, but his right to say it.

Did Lineker voice his political views while presenting football for the BBC? Is he employed by the BBC in a political role, like Kuesenburg is? No. So he should be allowed to say what he wants on his own time, provided he doesn't cross certain bounds (eg: such as calling for the death of people). Those bounds need to be well defined, but calling out the government should never be part of that.

They don't reprimand Alan Sugar for telling people to vote Tory. They don't demand Lineker say other brands of crisps are available. The Tories have had more than a decade to load the top of the BBC with place men and this is what results.

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 11, 2023 2:58 pm

There certainly is a moral issue, and I've no doubt everyone supporting him agree wholeheartedly with what he said, but the suspension of Lineker is about political impartiality, not about the Tories inability to see they're utterly evil. Not what he said, but his right to say it.

No, it's not. It's about the Tories punishing those who point out their moral failings, while not punishing those who break political neutrality to support them. See Fiona Bruce getting away with supporting domestic violence by Stanley Johnson, Peston and Laura K publishing Tory talking points as some sort of journalism, the BBC loading question time with far right panelists and questioners, etc.

There's no political neutrality at the BBC anyway.

Probably buggered his chances of a knighthood. Well, from this government at least.

Mind you, first Honours List after the next election...

Little waster wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 11, 2023 4:40 pm

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 11, 2023 4:03 pm

They don't reprimand Alan Sugar for telling people to vote Tory.

It was even more on the nose than that:-

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/sir-alan ... r-11310726

Not even "Corbyn's rhetoric sounds a bit like a Nazi" but "Corbyn actually is a Nazi".

I'd argue whatever dubious requirement there is for the BBC's top earners to give the impression of total impartiality even when expressing their private opinion away from the BBC would apply more to someone like Sugar, an actual member of parliament who is regularly put forward as some sort of serious spokesperson for the business community, rather than the crisp-peddler whose BBC input is usually limited to whether or not Port Vale have been unlucky with VAR offside calls this season.

Ditto his on-screen colleague Karren Brady who is a Conservative member of the House of Lords.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 11, 2023 4:28 pm

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 11, 2023 2:58 pm

There certainly is a moral issue, and I've no doubt everyone supporting him agree wholeheartedly with what he said, but the suspension of Lineker is about political impartiality, not about the Tories inability to see they're utterly evil. Not what he said, but his right to say it.

No, it's not. It's about the Tories punishing those who point out their moral failings, while not punishing those who break political neutrality to support them. See Fiona Bruce getting away with supporting domestic violence by Stanley Johnson, Peston and Laura K publishing Tory talking points as some sort of journalism, the BBC loading question time with far right panelists and questioners, etc.

There's no political neutrality at the BBC anyway.

I'm not disagreeing with you that that's why they *really* suspended him. I'm saying that both sides are saying the dispute is over his right to say it, rather than his being right in what he said.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 11, 2023 5:56 pm

Sugar should all been free to make it, just as Lineker should be free to espouse his (on the issue in question) quite commendable views.

Regardless of whether you agree with Sugar or not, it was still a blatant bit of partisan point scoring, in the way that Linekar's was not, the difference between criticising an entire political party and criticising how a single specific policy is being sold.

It's not whether that Sugar SHOULD have been allowed to make that comment, it's that he WAS. In contrast, whether Linekar SHOULD have been allowed to make his comment, the fact is he WASN'T. It's the double standards on display not the relative merits of each post

The relative merits are however that Sugar's position in the BBC and the actual content of the post (same with Laura K, Andrew Neil etc.) should have been held to a higher standard than what Linekar is being held too. The reality is the reverse.

Gary Lineker sent a tweet, and now people are asking if the DG and Chairman are going to resign.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/ ... dApp_Other

Say what you like, but if I sent a tweet and it made the PM have to issue a statement on a Saturday evening because of how worried he is, I'd be f.cking proud of myself. Just incredible how much the BBC have f.cked it.

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 11, 2023 2:58 pm

There certainly is a moral issue, and I've no doubt everyone supporting him agree wholeheartedly with what he said, but the suspension of Lineker is about political impartiality, not about the Tories inability to see they're utterly evil. Not what he said, but his right to say it.

Q: why does the presenter of MotD need to
be impartial?

A: Because the government have wrapped their atavastic flagshaggjng disaster capitalism in a Common Sense Hard Working Families (tm) Middle England , they are desperatley butthurt that a middle of the road national treasure, and by extension, football fans, disagrees with them.

Is it possible that The BBC havent “f.cked it”, and the while ruing is a malicious compliance rebellion ?

noggins wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:10 pm

Is it possible that The BBC havent “f.cked it”, and the while ruing is a malicious compliance rebellion ?

Not very likely. The people at the top of the BBC these days are tories, walking a constant tightrope between not looking like they're obviously biased toward the tories and not triggering the Daily Express to demand the traitors be broken up and sold off.

f.cking editing window too f.cking short

Colleague of mine has pointed out that the bbc impartiality guidelines explicitly state that the bbc is not to be impartial on racism

https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelin ... nd-racism/

Which is interesting - clearly one of the implications of GLs accusation is that of the government being racist. And they'd of course dispute that. So in that case does the racism exemption apply?

If not, since none but the most committed arses would openly admit to being racist, almost all talk of racism will end up being disputed by the alleged racists. So either the rule is pretty useless, or GL is within the guidelines to criticise govt policy that he has a credible argument for being racist.

Or something. Haven't read this through thoroughly enough because I'm not in the mood to have a drawn out Internet discussion tonight, but something for one of you you look at and bring into the debate maybe

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 11, 2023 7:51 pm

The list of appalling things the British Empire did was long, but denying refugees asylum in the thirties was one of them.

And it is regret over the latter that was one of the driving factors in Britain being so keen on an international agreement to prevent it ever happening again. The agreement the we now seem to want to break.

Wow, the sheer stupidity of right wing commentators and tory mps on twitter

bjn wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 11, 2023 3:37 pm

So he should be allowed to say what he wants on his own time, provided he doesn't cross certain bounds (eg: such as calling for the death of people).

Which Jeremy Clarkson did, and continued presenting Top Gear for another four years until he punched a producer…