This Lineker thing

[belton rover]

When a new manger comes in surely he lays the laws down for 'new' standards, no? otherwise he wouldn't be a very good new manager aye?

This does not go to answering the two even three distinct question surrounding this:

The right to speak.

Everyone with the same rights.

What one says.

I wasn’t attempting to answer those questions. I was giving a possible reason why Sugar wasn’t pulled up, but Lineker was, which is another question that has been asked.
By the way, Sydney, what’s with the ‘aye’ in many of your responses?
Is it to remind yourself you’re from Yorkshire, or is it a boys’ secret code, like in ‘P’tang Yang Kipperbang’?
Either way, it’s really funny.

[SydneyRover]

boys secret code

[Campsall rover]

And yet 36 tory MPs have written a letter to the bbc demanding an inquiry about it.

By the way CR it was DO who posted the tweet above.

Ok sorry DO & Branton. ( I will change it on the post. )

Well Sydney you will be pleased to know even though it won’t affect you directly being in OZ, that this government are going to get a hammering at the next GE
If the election took place right now I reckon there would be the biggest swing from blue to red seats this country has ever seen. Not sure on my stats on that but it wouldn’t be far off that’s for sure.
That’s even with most people not convinced about Starmer as a prime minister.
Unless something very dramatic happens over the next 12/18 months depending when the election is called.

Even though I have been voting Tory most of my life and never Labour I do think a change is needed.
The Tories have been in now since 2010 and 14 yrs (as it will be next yr ) is enough for any political party if there is a credible other party waiting in the wings.
Whether they are actually credible is the unknown, but the country needs a change.  This set of Tories are the worst we have had in a very long time. They think they are invincible and need to be brought to their senses.
Only way that will happen is to lose the next GE.  Which they will.  The country has had enough and even Tory voters like myself maybe prepared to vote Red next time.

[SydneyRover]

It's a huge ask considering the majority CR but yes I'm happy with the polls but not of course with the way the country is being run. If you think it's time for a change there is hope.

[Bentley Bullet]

“I think there is a general observation that I’d make, which is I think comparisons with Germany in the 1930s aren’t always the best way to make one’s argument."

Sir Keir Starmer.

[Campsall rover]

“I think there is a general observation that I’d make, which is I think comparisons with Germany in the 1930s aren’t always the best way to make one’s argument."

Sir Keir Starmer.

But if it makes this Government aware of how they are being perceived then that can’t be a bad thing.
I hope this is a wake up call for this Government. One can hope.

[drfchound]

When a new manger comes in surely he lays the laws down for 'new' standards, no? otherwise he wouldn't be a very good new manager aye?

This does not go to answering the two even three distinct question surrounding this:

The right to speak.

Everyone with the same rights.

What one says.

I wasn’t attempting to answer those questions. I was giving a possible reason why Sugar wasn’t pulled up, but Lineker was, which is another question that has been asked.
By the way, Sydney, what’s with the ‘aye’ in many of your responses?
Is it to remind yourself you’re from Yorkshire, or is it a boys’ secret code, like in ‘P’tang Yang Kipperbang’?
Either way, it’s really funny.

That “aye” in posts always gives me an image of Popeye the sailor man for some reason.

[ravenrover]

Positive discussions taking place
The compromise for me will be a statement along the lines of the BBC interpretation of the rules was different to GLs understanding. There has now been an agreement on what is and what is not acceptable GL is looking forward to resuming hosting MotD on Saturday

[DonnyOsmond]

Sky News understands he's going to return and the BBC will apologise to him.

[ncRover]

''When Alan Sugar tweeted an image depicting Jeremy Corbyn as a Nazi (or indeed, when Gary Lineker tweeted "Bin Corbyn" in 2017), that didn't precipitate an internal crisis for BBC over its impartiality. Why?''

https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1633749550719483911

Do you think it should have done?

Was it true, is the question that should be asked, did the comment reflect the situation?

For the record I think Gary’s point was there to be made and he should be able to express it.

We could argue all day on whether Gary’s views on Corbyn or Andrew Neil’s conservative views are true, and that is because they are opinions.

I was just checking to see if you’re were being consistent with your views on Free Speech. If you want Gary to be able to air his views you should also not have a problem with Neil or Clarkson doing so previously either.

[BillyStubbsTears]

CR.

The problem is that some folk have blown this up into a "Lineker says UK is like Nazi Germany" thing. That really doesn't help.

A lot of the same people also don't seem to realise why Lineker was suspended. In the very words of the DG, it was about high profile BBC figures "getting into party politics". Not the precise wording of the tweet.

That is a simply ridiculous stance by the BBC. A BBC that employed as its chief political interviewer, Andrew Neil who actually runs a magazine that regularly dives into party political issues, from a very right wing standpoint.

I posted a link from a man who used to run the BBC's impartiality team. He hit the nail on the head. He asked: did anyone read Lineker's tweet and think "Oh, that's the BBC showing a lack of impartiality?" Of course they didn't. They thought that's Gary Lineker's opinion.

That should have been the start and end of it.

The problem for the BBC is that, with its senior management stuffed full of Tories, it looks very much like it reacted as it did because Tory ministers got up in arms about the tweet.

That's a very dangerous look for a national broadcaster.

[BillyStubbsTears]

''When Alan Sugar tweeted an image depicting Jeremy Corbyn as a Nazi (or indeed, when Gary Lineker tweeted "Bin Corbyn" in 2017), that didn't precipitate an internal crisis for BBC over its impartiality. Why?''

https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1633749550719483911

Do you think it should have done?

Was it true, is the question that should be asked, did the comment reflect the situation?

For the record I think Gary’s point was there to be made and he should be able to express it.

We could argue all day on whether Gary’s views on Corbyn or Andrew Neil’s conservative views are true, and that is because they are opinions.

I was just checking to see if you’re were being consistent with your views on Free Speech. If you want Gary to be able to air his views you should also not have a problem with Neil or Clarkson doing so previously either.

I had no problem with Clarkson's political views.

I did have a problem with me paying for him to trot out racist "jokes" on TV.

[Bentley Bullet]

BST, if you don't think freedom of speech should have consequences, did you agree with Twitter banning Donald Trump?

[ncRover]

''When Alan Sugar tweeted an image depicting Jeremy Corbyn as a Nazi (or indeed, when Gary Lineker tweeted "Bin Corbyn" in 2017), that didn't precipitate an internal crisis for BBC over its impartiality. Why?''

https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1633749550719483911

Do you think it should have done?

Was it true, is the question that should be asked, did the comment reflect the situation?

For the record I think Gary’s point was there to be made and he should be able to express it.

We could argue all day on whether Gary’s views on Corbyn or Andrew Neil’s conservative views are true, and that is because they are opinions.

I was just checking to see if you’re were being consistent with your views on Free Speech. If you want Gary to be able to air his views you should also not have a problem with Neil or Clarkson doing so previously either.

I had no problem with Clarkson's political views.

I did have a problem with me paying for him to trot out racist "jokes" on TV.

Fair do’s I forgot about the Vietnam one.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

On the same vein, the BBC didn't cover this up and actually their news arm covered the story very well I thought, that's a real positive for independent news I'd say.

A full review of this seems a really good thing, the world's constantly changing and the BBC policies clearly haven't kept up.

[Ldr]

Absolute storm in a teacup

[belton rover]

I think it’s been handled really well.
As Big says, let’s hope the BBC can learn from this and continue to catch up with the times.
It’s good to know there was apparently no political agenda after all.

[Campsall rover]

CR.

The problem is that some folk have blown this up into a "Lineker says UK is like Nazi Germany" thing. That really doesn't help.

A lot of the same people also don't seem to realise why Lineker was suspended. In the very words of the DG, it was about high profile BBC figures "getting into party politics". Not the precise wording of the tweet.

That is a simply ridiculous stance by the BBC. A BBC that employed as its chief political interviewer, Andrew Neil who actually runs a magazine that regularly dives into party political issues, from a very right wing standpoint.

I posted a link from a man who used to run the BBC's impartiality team. He hit the nail on the head. He asked: did anyone read Lineker's tweet and think "Oh, that's the BBC showing a lack of impartiality?" Of course they didn't. They thought that's Gary Lineker's opinion.

That should have been the start and end of it.

The problem for the BBC is that, with its senior management stuffed full of Tories, it looks very much like it reacted as it did because Tory ministers got up in arms about the tweet.

That's a very dangerous look for a national broadcaster.

Yes I agree with all of that.
BBC handled it very badly and now hopefully they have backed down and sorted this out with GL

They turned something pretty minor into something major.
As was said a storm in a tea cup. Nearly turned it into a hurricane in the BBC broadcasting house.

[BillyStubbsTears]

From the BBC website.

The BBC’s director general, Tim Davie, says the decision to pull Gary Lineker off air was always about buying some time until they could come to an agreement over his political tweets.

A few observations.

1) It's good to see Davie accepting that it was his decision to "pull Lineker off air". Because on Friday, the consistent BBC line was that Lineker had stepped down. In report after report, that precise wording was used, clearly showing it was an editorial decision to frame it as Lineker's move, rather than Davie's. That line didn't change until Lineker made it clear that he hadn't chosen to step down, he'd been told to.

Might seem like a small difference in words, but the effect on shaping the story is massive.

2) This is also very different language to last Thursday, when , as Tory MPs were taking to the battlements, Davie said Lineker would be “reminded of his responsibilities in a frank conversation”.   

3) Here's a thought experiment. When Davie called Lineker in on Friday, imagine if Lineker's response had been "Yes, you're right. I shouldn't have sent that tweet. I'll take it down and apologise." Do you think the BBC would now be having a review of its guidelines?

4) Now that the issue of impartiality of senior BBC figures has been brought into the spotlight, I assume we'll be looking into the case of the BBC Chairman who is a big Tory party donor?

5) And while we're at it, one of the biggest critics of Lineker over this weekend has been the Jewish Chronicle, which reported some very selective criticisms of Lineker's tweets by prominent members of the Jewish community, while entirely ignoring others who supported him. Some of those criticisms made their way into this very thread.

That's the Jewish Chronicle owned by a consortium headed by Robbie Gibb. That's Robbie Gibb who is on the BBC Board or Directors, after previously being the Tory Govt head spin doctor.

So many worms start wriggling around when you open the can marked "impartiality".

[Usher down the wing.]

Quite simply the BBC underestimated:-

a) The support GL received from his colleagues whose refusals to commentate, give punditry to & ‘front’ sporting programmes including radio, caused an unprecedented disruption & enforced rescheduling of many of its high profile ´slots’ that it clearly didn’t envisage.

b) The support of the majority of the general public who supported GL’s right to freedom of speech.

Sue Braverman in hitting out at GL’s tweet has merely turned the spotlight on herself, this divisive government & the BBC’s complete lack of impartiality.

Shot. Foot. Own.

[roverstillidie91]

Tory T.V, sorry I mean Talk T.V I never realised Talksport is owned by Rupert Murdochs company. The former is so biased it is unbelievable.

Oh and not to forget GB News.

[Bentley Bullet]

BST, if you don't think freedom of speech should have consequences, did you agree with Twitter banning Donald Trump?

[i_ateallthepies]

CR.

The problem is that some folk have blown this up into a "Lineker says UK is like Nazi Germany" thing. That really doesn't help.

A lot of the same people also don't seem to realise why Lineker was suspended. In the very words of the DG, it was about high profile BBC figures "getting into party politics". Not the precise wording of the tweet.

That is a simply ridiculous stance by the BBC. A BBC that employed as its chief political interviewer, Andrew Neil who actually runs a magazine that regularly dives into party political issues, from a very right wing standpoint.

I posted a link from a man who used to run the BBC's impartiality team. He hit the nail on the head. He asked: did anyone read Lineker's tweet and think "Oh, that's the BBC showing a lack of impartiality?" Of course they didn't. They thought that's Gary Lineker's opinion.

That should have been the start and end of it.

The problem for the BBC is that, with its senior management stuffed full of Tories, it looks very much like it reacted as it did because Tory ministers got up in arms about the tweet.

That's a very dangerous look for a national broadcaster.

BBC are still at it.  From their online editorial about Lineker's return to the fold "Lineker's Tweet comparing the government's asylum policies to 1930s Germany"

[ravenrover]

And now Cruella says the police should enforce and support freedom of speech !!!!!!!

[danumdon]

So after all the melodrama of the last few days it seems we are now back on terra firma, The BBC will apologise to Lineker, review and implement a new code of conduct for its "Staff" and freelancers. Lineker will be back at MOTD with his mates, eventually everything will start to settle down bar a few loose cannons on here determined to peruse this issue to within an inch of its usable life.

So now if anything this episode has opened up the argument about the BBC and its place in UK broadcasting today and for the future, no doubt many will be now asking if in this day and age we can continue with the status quo, do we continue with the current funding model after the next review or does it go to fully commercial basis. is it even relevant anymore to peoples everyday lives and importantly with how people are stretched with the cost of living crisis is it desirable to have the current funding model.

All these issues will no doubt be looked at by many and then the questions will really start to be asked of this service. In today's commercially aware world can this service even stand still and be considered value for money when its virtually lost all its live major sporting output and is having to make do with sloppy seconds from the table of other broadcasters couple with constant repeats and the cheapest new productions it can find. If it was not for it news channels output and revenues from worldwide sales of former shoes,productions and drama's it would be very much in the deepest red with regards to its balance of payments.

Should we really be paying for a service that has so many issues with its governance, staff, output and perceived accountability? that now forms a a very small part of the media intake of a majority of licence holders in this country?

[scawsby steve]

So after all the melodrama of the last few days it seems we are now back on terra firma, The BBC will apologise to Lineker, review and implement a new code of conduct for its "Staff" and freelancers. Lineker will be back at MOTD with his mates, eventually everything will start to settle down bar a few loose cannons on here determined to peruse this issue to within an inch of its usable life.

So now if anything this episode has opened up the argument about the BBC and its place in UK broadcasting today and for the future, no doubt many will be now asking if in this day and age we can continue with the status quo, do we continue with the current funding model after the next review or does it go to fully commercial basis. is it even relevant anymore to peoples everyday lives and importantly with how people are stretched with the cost of living crisis is it desirable to have the current funding model.

All these issues will no doubt be looked at by many and then the questions will really start to be asked of this service. In today's commercially aware world can this service even stand still and be considered value for money when its virtually lost all its live major sporting output and is having to make do with sloppy seconds from the table of other broadcasters couple with constant repeats and the cheapest new productions it can find. If it was not for it news channels output and revenues from worldwide sales of former shoes,productions and drama's it would be very much in the deepest red with regards to its balance of payments.

Should we really be paying for a service that has so many issues with its governance, staff, output and perceived accountability? that now forms a a very small part of the media intake of a majority of licence holders in this country?

Great post, DD. I prefer Sky News and Sky Sports to the alternatives on BBC any day of the week; and I pay for them of my own volition, as opposed to a compulsory payment to the BBC which is utterly wrong.

[scawsby steve]

what about sugar?

that's the thing about theory, you can have umpteen supporting text but need only one to disprove it.

Branton, are you debating what was said or the right to be allowed to say it?

I prefer Tate & Lyle. However, I don't really need sugar at all; I'm such a sweet person.

Don't you agree, Sydney?

[Branton Red]

“I think there is a general observation that I’d make, which is I think comparisons with Germany in the 1930s aren’t always the best way to make one’s argument."

Sir Keir Starmer.

I agree wholeheartedly with Sir Keir on this. Put very simply and succinctly. Of course such comparisons are inappropriate. I still don't for the life of me understand how any decent human being (with a reasonable understanding of history) could defend such comments. The BBC should have pulled Lineker to one side and brought him up on this point.

[ncRover]

So after all the melodrama of the last few days it seems we are now back on terra firma, The BBC will apologise to Lineker, review and implement a new code of conduct for its "Staff" and freelancers. Lineker will be back at MOTD with his mates, eventually everything will start to settle down bar a few loose cannons on here determined to peruse this issue to within an inch of its usable life.

So now if anything this episode has opened up the argument about the BBC and its place in UK broadcasting today and for the future, no doubt many will be now asking if in this day and age we can continue with the status quo, do we continue with the current funding model after the next review or does it go to fully commercial basis. is it even relevant anymore to peoples everyday lives and importantly with how people are stretched with the cost of living crisis is it desirable to have the current funding model.

All these issues will no doubt be looked at by many and then the questions will really start to be asked of this service. In today's commercially aware world can this service even stand still and be considered value for money when its virtually lost all its live major sporting output and is having to make do with sloppy seconds from the table of other broadcasters couple with constant repeats and the cheapest new productions it can find. If it was not for it news channels output and revenues from worldwide sales of former shoes,productions and drama's it would be very much in the deepest red with regards to its balance of payments.

Should we really be paying for a service that has so many issues with its governance, staff, output and perceived accountability? that now forms a a very small part of the media intake of a majority of licence holders in this country?

Every time there is a discussion about leaving the BBC to fund itself on a commercial basis, it’s highest paid employees go all dewy-eyed and lecture us about how good it is. They start talking about it as if it is up there with a national institution like the NHS saying stuff like “our BBC”.

If it is so good, then surely it will flourish commercially? What are they scared of? The pushback says it all. Switching to a commercial model would probably allow it to have a higher quality output eventually because that’s the world we live in.

The license fee comes from a time where BBC was the only thing available. Even in the last 10 years, the competition in the market and choices available has gone through the roof. People can even start from nothing and become multi-millionaires on their YouTube channel.

I bet the that the BBC takes up less than 1% of an under-18s screen time. I can save myself a full hour and just watch the premier league highlights on the sky sports YouTube channel. A sour-faced Danny Murphy telling me a full-back needs to get tighter isn’t worth staying up for.

[SydneyRover]

The vetting files: How the BBC kept out ‘subversives’

''For decades the BBC denied that job applicants were subject to political vetting by MI5. But in fact vetting began in the early days of the BBC and continued until the 1990s. Paul Reynolds, the first journalist to see all the BBC's vetting files, tells the story of the long relationship between the corporation and the Security Service''

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-43754737

'Subversives' are usually 99% 'the left' how many times over the years have we seen the left targeted by police, security services and whole industries and in recent years insidious maligning of working people by tory ministers.