Discussion
JNW1 said:
According to his agent Gary Lineker thought he had an agreement with the BBC whereby he could comment freely on certain issues (amongst them being refugees and immigration).
Interview in the New StatesmenThat seems to place the blame squarely with Tim Davie
https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2023/03/gar...
Which the BBC article seems to gloss over?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64976007
Edited by Byker28i on Thursday 16th March 14:25
JNW1 said:
According to his agent Gary Lineker thought he had an agreement with the BBC whereby he could comment freely on certain issues (amongst them being refugees and immigration). So either that agreement wasn't very clear - and resulted in a misunderstanding - or the BBC reneged on it; however, either way it escalated out of all proportion with the BBC's decision to stand him down from MOTD seemingly a significant contributor to that.
Reflecting on the whole saga, I have to say I'm not really sure why people working for the BBC - whether as employees or freelancers - should need to remain impartial with the comments they make in things like personal Tweets unless they're either political commentators or work in the newsroom. Providing a presenter like Gary Lineker makes it clear he's commenting in a personal capacity (as opposed to his professional capacity with the BBC) I think he should be free to say what he wants and people can then make-up their own minds as to whether they agree with him or not.
So on balance I think it should be ok for Lineker to compare the UK government with 1930's Germany if that's the way he feels; I still think it's inappropriate hyperbole but I nevertheless defend his right to say it. He should also be free to express his view on something like trophy hunting and on that issue I happen to think he's spot on. It will be interesting to see what the independent review decides...
I agree with the above post. Clearly there are situations and subjects upon which none of us should make a public comment if it directly cuts across a professional position within an organisation, or even if the comment indirectly ìputs that organisation in a bad light. That last part is very subjective I will admit.Reflecting on the whole saga, I have to say I'm not really sure why people working for the BBC - whether as employees or freelancers - should need to remain impartial with the comments they make in things like personal Tweets unless they're either political commentators or work in the newsroom. Providing a presenter like Gary Lineker makes it clear he's commenting in a personal capacity (as opposed to his professional capacity with the BBC) I think he should be free to say what he wants and people can then make-up their own minds as to whether they agree with him or not.
So on balance I think it should be ok for Lineker to compare the UK government with 1930's Germany if that's the way he feels; I still think it's inappropriate hyperbole but I nevertheless defend his right to say it. He should also be free to express his view on something like trophy hunting and on that issue I happen to think he's spot on. It will be interesting to see what the independent review decides...
Outside of that, provided what is said or written is completely outside any and all sensible connection with the organisation then provided the comment is legal, decent and not abusive then what business is it of others to try and get that person in trouble with or even sacked by their employer?
It's none of their business basically. As stated many many pages back it's just a example of blatant cancel culture, trying to make trouble for individuals simply on the basis of disagreeing with their freely held opinion.
Before anyone starts pointing fingers anywhere, all sides of the political and social spectrum have been guilty of this in recent times. It has to stop. If nothing else it harms freedom of speech as some simply remain quiet to avoid the pile on. This forum is no exception.
Yeah, I don't see how a football pundit talking about politics in their own time can be seen as the BBC being impartial.
There's a significant section of society that takes words that have a meaning like impartial or woke and just using it to mean "I don't like what that person is saying".
There's a significant section of society that takes words that have a meaning like impartial or woke and just using it to mean "I don't like what that person is saying".
ZedLeg said:
Yeah, I don't see how a football pundit talking about politics in their own time can be seen as the BBC being impartial.
There's a significant section of society that takes words that have a meaning like impartial or woke and just using it to mean "I don't like what that person is saying".
As Adam Serwer of The Atlantic put it: There's a significant section of society that takes words that have a meaning like impartial or woke and just using it to mean "I don't like what that person is saying".
Sometimes when people say "woke" they mean "liberals being self-righteous and vicious about trivial things" and sometimes they mean "integration," or "civil rights laws" or "black people on television" and it's convenient not to have to explain what you actually mean.
Gweeds said:
ZedLeg said:
Yeah, I don't see how a football pundit talking about politics in their own time can be seen as the BBC being impartial.
There's a significant section of society that takes words that have a meaning like impartial or woke and just using it to mean "I don't like what that person is saying".
As Adam Serwer of The Atlantic put it: There's a significant section of society that takes words that have a meaning like impartial or woke and just using it to mean "I don't like what that person is saying".
Sometimes when people say "woke" they mean "liberals being self-righteous and vicious about trivial things" and sometimes they mean "integration," or "civil rights laws" or "black people on television" and it's convenient not to have to explain what you actually mean.
Byker28i said:
Championship football highlights on Channel 5? F1 coverage on Channel 4. Apart from football, there's plenty of sporting shows use exactly the same format of knowlegeable commentators before, after and during the event
Ah, wouldn’t know about the championship… just yet 
Nice to know there’s a program to watch if we do go down..
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:deadslow said:
the Right have appropriated the word 'woke' to cover/camouflage their own bigotry.
To be honest I'm not even sure it's that sophisticated.I just see it as a lazy shorthand for "anyone who doesn't agree with me" these days.
Generalisations also fail, as in the Right being bigots. There are bigots in Labour supporters over on the Left, and all other flavours too, ask Gordon Brown. Only if they don't look like supporters now, of course. If time is short, go to 3.20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEReCN9gO14
Progressive policies which don't achieve their aim, never mind progress, that's something else but not progress.
Mr Lineker thankfully has avoided such traps, unless you know different?
turbobloke said:
Like gammon then - lazy ad homs attacking people with a different opinion are like that.
Tripe, as usual. I vehemently disagree with Cameron, but despite his appearance and alleged proclivities, he isn't remotely gammon. Farage however is, to the core.Edited by minimoog on Thursday 16th March 16:38
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:deadslow said:
the Right have appropriated the word 'woke' to cover/camouflage their own bigotry.
To be honest I'm not even sure it's that sophisticated.I just see it as a lazy shorthand for "anyone who doesn't agree with me" these days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF6vSm3PEKc
Killboy said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:deadslow said:
the Right have appropriated the word 'woke' to cover/camouflage their own bigotry.
To be honest I'm not even sure it's that sophisticated.I just see it as a lazy shorthand for "anyone who doesn't agree with me" these days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF6vSm3PEKc
turbobloke said:
Like gammon then - lazy ad homs attacking people with a different opinion are like that.
Generalisations also fail, as in the Right being bigots. There are bigots in Labour supporters over on the Left, and all other flavours too, ask Gordon Brown. Only if they don't look like supporters now, of course. If time is short, go to 3.20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEReCN9gO14
Progressive policies which don't achieve their aim, never mind progress, that's something else but not progress.
Mr Lineker thankfully has avoided such traps, unless you know different?
I agree to some extent on Gammon which is why I tend not to use it but I don't half laugh when people lose their sGeneralisations also fail, as in the Right being bigots. There are bigots in Labour supporters over on the Left, and all other flavours too, ask Gordon Brown. Only if they don't look like supporters now, of course. If time is short, go to 3.20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEReCN9gO14
Progressive policies which don't achieve their aim, never mind progress, that's something else but not progress.
Mr Lineker thankfully has avoided such traps, unless you know different?
t at being called it and start insisting it's racist.And of course there are bigots all along the political spectrum I don't think anyone would dispute that.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:turbobloke said:
Like gammon then - lazy ad homs attacking people with a different opinion are like that.
Generalisations also fail, as in the Right being bigots. There are bigots in Labour supporters over on the Left, and all other flavours too, ask Gordon Brown. Only if they don't look like supporters now, of course. If time is short, go to 3.20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEReCN9gO14
Progressive policies which don't achieve their aim, never mind progress, that's something else but not progress.
Mr Lineker thankfully has avoided such traps, unless you know different?
I agree to some extent on Gammon which is why I tend not to use it but I don't half laugh when people lose their sGeneralisations also fail, as in the Right being bigots. There are bigots in Labour supporters over on the Left, and all other flavours too, ask Gordon Brown. Only if they don't look like supporters now, of course. If time is short, go to 3.20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEReCN9gO14
Progressive policies which don't achieve their aim, never mind progress, that's something else but not progress.
Mr Lineker thankfully has avoided such traps, unless you know different?
t at being called it and start insisting it's racist.It'll all repeat in due course as there's very little chance of PH becoming a ULIZ (I - insults).
I'll just leave this here as haven't commented since he was very quickly re-instated.
They may have gotten him suspended by the BBC, but Gary Lineker’s political tweets could help him avoid a £4.9m tax bill
They may have gotten him suspended by the BBC, but Gary Lineker’s political tweets could help him avoid a £4.9m tax bill
The Guardian said:
HMRC is pursuing Lineker for £3,621,736 in income tax and £1,313,755 in national insurance contributions for that period.
However, Yvonne Gallagher, a partner at lawyers Harbottle & Lewis, told The Guardian that Lineker could use his Twitter account to his advantage.
That's because Lineker's defence rests on him being able to prove he is an independent contractor, and not a regular employee of the BBC.
"Lineker can argue that he is not subject to the same level of control as BBC employees given his apparent freedom to express personal and political views on social media,” said Gallagher.
Gallagher did stress that the case would be a tough one to fight.
"Although Lineker was suspended for his comments online, the fact that the BBC reversed their decision - and have not taken action against him in the past for similarly politcal tweets - could help to support his argument."
But no, I'm sure the £5m had nothing to do with it..However, Yvonne Gallagher, a partner at lawyers Harbottle & Lewis, told The Guardian that Lineker could use his Twitter account to his advantage.
That's because Lineker's defence rests on him being able to prove he is an independent contractor, and not a regular employee of the BBC.
"Lineker can argue that he is not subject to the same level of control as BBC employees given his apparent freedom to express personal and political views on social media,” said Gallagher.
Gallagher did stress that the case would be a tough one to fight.
"Although Lineker was suspended for his comments online, the fact that the BBC reversed their decision - and have not taken action against him in the past for similarly politcal tweets - could help to support his argument."
FiF said:
I agree with the above post. Clearly there are situations and subjects upon which none of us should make a public comment if it directly cuts across a professional position within an organisation, or even if the comment indirectly ìputs that organisation in a bad light. That last part is very subjective I will admit.
Outside of that, provided what is said or written is completely outside any and all sensible connection with the organisation then provided the comment is legal, decent and not abusive then what business is it of others to try and get that person in trouble with or even sacked by their employer?
It's none of their business basically. As stated many many pages back it's just a example of blatant cancel culture, trying to make trouble for individuals simply on the basis of disagreeing with their freely held opinion.
Before anyone starts pointing fingers anywhere, all sides of the political and social spectrum have been guilty of this in recent times. It has to stop. If nothing else it harms freedom of speech as some simply remain quiet to avoid the pile on. This forum is no exception.
Without wishing to “do a Lineker” and compare two things which may not bear scrutiny in some people’s eyes, a thought crossed my mind this week.Outside of that, provided what is said or written is completely outside any and all sensible connection with the organisation then provided the comment is legal, decent and not abusive then what business is it of others to try and get that person in trouble with or even sacked by their employer?
It's none of their business basically. As stated many many pages back it's just a example of blatant cancel culture, trying to make trouble for individuals simply on the basis of disagreeing with their freely held opinion.
Before anyone starts pointing fingers anywhere, all sides of the political and social spectrum have been guilty of this in recent times. It has to stop. If nothing else it harms freedom of speech as some simply remain quiet to avoid the pile on. This forum is no exception.
The Elvis biopic was on, just at a place where Elvis was being told he could not perform the way he had because he was too sexual and took too much inspiration from black musicians.
My son asked what was going on?
I explained that as far as I knew, the puritanical, Christian, racist section of America were outraged and decided he needed to be censored and/or brought down a peg or three.
We both agreed that a small section of self righteous, over opinionated bigots shouldn’t be able to hold so much sway over a what a nation is allowed to see.
A lot of cancel culture feels this way, a small number of loud voices doing what’s ”right”. I wonder whether we will look back in future times and wonder how we got to this place and why we ever expended the energy censoring people.
I hope that comes across as intended, let me know if not.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff