MOTD

[pauliewalnuts]

Left wing, right wing  can we not just agree Lineker is a complete wanker?

The post above about <removed> sums him up

No, he is not a wanker and please don’t include the rest of us in your silly comments. Anyone who is prepared to give up their means of earning to fight for a cause has to be admired.

You can fight a cause without using the language that has caused the controversy, and led to the action. And if you think that he thought he’d lose his job over it I’d say you’re giving him too much credit. I think he’s so arrogant that he thought the rules don’t apply to him, and it wouldn’t be an issue. He suggested as such to the press.

Which bit of the language he used offends you out of interest?

None of it. Why?

You mentioned fighting a cause without using the language he used, apologies for my presumption that it offended you. Perhaps i should of asked which language you think he shouldn’t of used?

Ok fair enough. Like I said earlier I think his arrogance meant that he thought he could say what he liked. In terms of the language used he should have stuck to the concerns he had about the specific government policy and it’s likely effects.

Surely he can say whatever he wants, on any subject he pleases?

[Clark W Griswold]

Apparently not!

[PeterWithe]

Yes, so why does the Beeb have a left wing sports bias?

It doesn't particularly, but right-wingers use things like this to claim it does and that the BBC as a whole is therefore leftie. That's my point, Lineker posting about refugees or Nish Kumar taking the piss out of Johnson is the claimed 'left-wing bias'. So saying "both the left and the right complain of bias so they must be doing something right" is wrong because the examples of the bias are just not comparable.

Well I suppose what I think of the Beeb is coloured byR4 as that’s pretty much what I consume these days when I’m in the car.

It’s very fair, they get right into the ribs of politicians of all hues, Ive never voted anything but Labour in all my years on this earth but if anything, they seem to give our boys and girls and slightly easier ride, maybe understandably because there isn’t any power to hold to account.

In short, I don’t think the Beeb is institutionally biased.

[Simon Page]

The Apprentice isn’t made by the BBC, it’s made by a third party company called MGM television. The BBC’s contract is with them, and not Alan Sugar or Karren Brady. They’re not presenters, they’re just paid stars on an entertainment programme. It’s a different situation entirely.

You keep going down this line and, frankly, it's horseshit. I know the BBC guidelines inside out through 20 years of having to abide by them and having to go on a pointless awareness course every time "talent" or an idiot, arrogant manager fucks them up. Genuinely pointless courses given I have no social media and never have.

They are applied on a totally ad hoc basis. The point behind them - and again, I've sat through hours of cnuts in loafers telling me this after someone else has screwed up - is you don't link your views to your BBC output. So, a hack on BBC news is pretty much gagged. A presenter of BBC political programme is (meant to be but it's a very moveable feast) gagged. A freelance football pundit isn't, unless an idiot in NBH decides to go down the route of panicking over the reactions of politicians or newspapers. A presenter on a bought in show, even one that does more to inform the public on business than any other, isn't bound by them UNLESS the BBC bosses choose to make them. If the BBC had any kind of consistency, The Apprentice wouldn't be on the BBC anymore or Gary Lineker would be. Jump around who produces what as much as you like, this is simply the BBC falling over itself to avoid a scandal and, as is fairly common, instead placing itself in the middle of one.

To be very clear, Gary Lineker and Alan Sugar can write whatever they like on their social media in ways that BBC employees can't. Everything beyond that is a choice of BBC management.

[Risso]

I’d kindly point out that the rules have changed since you moved on.

[Simon Page]

I'd kindly point out that the rules are applied on the whim of BBC management. If they'd not shat themselves (and believe me this isn't a grand conspiracy of the right) they would have said they disagree with his choice of wording and they will be speaking with him about that. Instead, they took a position and are now in deep, as is so common with them.

Alan Sugar and Andrew Neill broke the (old) rules, but as those rules are at the whim of BBC managers, they weren't subject to consequences. Neither was Lineker on previous times he has broken old and new rules. Until now. This is a story of BBC idiocy and inconsistency, nothing else.

[Risso]

I'd kindly point out that the rules are applied on the whim of BBC management. If they'd not shat themselves (and believe me this isn't a grand conspiracy of the right) they would have said they disagree with his choice of wording and they will be speaking with him about that. Instead, they took a position and are now in deep, as is so common with them.

Alan Sugar and Andrew Neill broke the (old) rules, but as those rules are at the whim of BBC managers, they weren't subject to consequences. Neither was Lineker on previous times he has broken old and new rules. Until now. This is a story of BBC idiocy and inconsistency, nothing else.

I agree that the rules should be applied consistently. That doesn’t mean that ignoring Lineker again is the right course of action though.

[Simon Page]

We do indeed agree. Genuinely happy days. If they don't want people on the BBC airing views, apply it equally across the board. If I - a no-mark, ten-a-penny hack - had said stop Corbyn or the Tories use 1930s language, I'd have been out on my arse with a couple of burly security guards making sure I landed on it.

The problem with the BBC has always been the people at the top and their HR stasi not realising that they have the easiest job in UK public life and they just have to not balls it up.

[Percy McCarthy]

Left wing, right wing  can we not just agree Lineker is a complete wanker?

The post above about <removed> sums him up

I think he’s quite a decent bloke.

What's not to like ? Showing common decency and humanity for those being scapegoated by an uncaring nasty government.
On top of that he scored a shedload of goals including many for England, and having the good grace to never hit the back of the net against us at any level playing at Villa Park.

I strongly agree.

[Brazilian Villain]

Never thought I’d see the good folk of H&V so keen on a multi-millionaire tax avoider.

Haha…that is true. What’s happening to us😥?

That thought had crossed my mind once or twice during this brouhaha.

Based on a couple of things I've about Lineker's antics over the years, Hookeysmith's description of him was, if anything, overly kind.

[Meanwood Villa]

We're on party lines again though aren't we? Only the Tories defending it. Not saying they're wrong (although obviously they are) but it is a bit rich to say "I'm the one being objective here". No you're not, you're defending the shithouses same as you have been last 13 years

[Ian.]

Whether you like him or not shouldn’t really come into this. It’s the way the Government have created this issue in the first place which is the thing that is wrong. The shouts from within Government to close him down is also very wrong and so is the way the BBC have handled it.

[PeterWithe]

I think the Government will be absolutely overjoyed at how this has played out, they are very, very good at distraction.

[dr.chekov]

He’s (inadvertently) instigated a pro-migrant wildcat strike. I like him this week.

[Ian.]

I think the Government will be absolutely overjoyed at how this has played out, they are very, very good at distraction.

Yep, it was a distraction tactic in the first place with a policy which is illegal and can’t actually happen. Now it’s resulted in a huge distraction and depending on what side of the fence you sit either the BBC are the bad people or Lineker is.