Who would replace him? (Shaun Botterill/Getty Images)
The embarrassment was clear even from the continuity announcer. “Now on BBC One, we’re sorry that we’re unable to show our normal Match of the Day,” he intoned gravely. There was no theme tune, no presenters, no commentary, no post-match interviews, no purpose, no journalism. Just dislocated clips from each of the day’s six Premier League fixtures. It was a joyless shadow of what used to be and, as such, a perfect emblem of where we stand.
Nothing works anymore. There are shortages of fruit and vegetables; energy is cripplingly expensive; strikes have become an everyday occurrence. Then there are the NHS, the railways and the Post Office. Match of the Day and, by extension, the BBC, is just another great institution run into the ground. But its collapse also reveals something about football and its place in society, its potential as a locus of dissent.
On 2 May 1953, the great cricket writer Neville Cardus went to Lord’s to watch the opening first-class match of the season: the MCC against Yorkshire, the champion county. “Play was not possible until 3.15pm,” he noted glumly in a letter to the Times. “Then the players came into the field and in an hour 20-odd runs were scored without a sign of a daring gesture, without a hint of personal relish.”
Nine miles to the west, at Wembley, Bolton Wanderers led Blackpool 3-1 in the FA Cup final. It looked like the 38-year-old Stanley Matthews, widely regarded as the best footballer in England, was again going to be denied the first medal of his career. But in the half-hour that followed, Matthews inspired a fightback and Blackpool won 4-3. Journalists, breaking all codes of etiquette, stood on their seats to applaud one of the most emotional of victories. As Cardus left Lord’s and ran into excited fans leaving Wembley, he spoke of his fear that cricket would “gradually disappear, not greatly lamented, into profound oblivion”. When Geoffrey Green, in his report of the FA Cup final in the same paper, spoke of football as “the game of the people”, Cardus said he felt he could no longer argue.
Although commentary of the FA Cup final had been available on the BBC World Service, the BBC Light Programme carried commentary on only the second half, preferring to cover the touring Australians at Leicester and a championship match between Hampshire and Essex. It wouldn’t happen again. What really hammered home football’s advantage was the fact that, for the first time, it had reached a mass television audience, as many people buying televisions for the Coronation did so a month early to watch Matthews and his last shot at silverware. As Martin Kelner argues in Sit Down and Cheer, this was the day when football supplanted cricket as the national sport.
FA Cup final coverage on BBC soon became a staple and, in 1964, Match of the Day was broadcast for the first time. Football, suddenly, was taken into people’s homes on a weekly basis. It became possible to see teams and players without actually going to the ground. Football became a mass cultural phenomenon.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis weekend I encountered peak irony. Irony so so dense, so massive, so unstable and brilliant, it may just collapse into a singularity.
Among the various individuals voicing support for Gary Lineker, perhaps the most prominent is one Alastair Campbell who works with the aforementioned production company…and no, I’m not bothered by the conflict of interest.
No, Campbell would never march into a live Channel 4 news broadcast and demand a retraction from the BBC and a punitive response to a journalist fact checking the government’s claim of Iraqi WMD. That would never happen.
Nor would there be a parliamentary enquiry into the BBC’s coverage of Campbell’s dossier, which is all rather fortunate as it wouldn’t result in the untimely death of the journalist’s source.
Thus, the BBC would never collapse under the weight of government pressure removing any final impediment to an invasion of a foreign country where hundreds of thousands would lose their lives, the rise of terrorist groups such as ISIS and the beginning of a two decade long refugee crisis.
This is all rather fortunate for Gary as using dehumanising language is, indeed, unfathomably cruel but perhaps not quite as cruel as causing those people to be refugees in the first place. So it’s rather fortunate that his business acquaintance and number one supporter never did anything resembling the above actions as it might otherwise cause him to look like a massive hypocrite.
Campbell is both a nasty piece of work – and an eejit.
And a war criminal.
Alistair Campbell a war criminal? Not everyone’s favourite I know but isn’t this debate about inflammatory language?
Hard to think of any language inflammatory enough where Campbell is concerned.
You clearly lack much knowledge about Campbell’s personal contributions to the invasion of Iraq.
Hard to think of any language inflammatory enough where Campbell is concerned.
You clearly lack much knowledge about Campbell’s personal contributions to the invasion of Iraq.
Alistair Campbell a war criminal? Not everyone’s favourite I know but isn’t this debate about inflammatory language?
And a war criminal.
Superb comment.
Alistair Campbell is no saint and you’ve put that brilliantly. Small point: being a hypocrite does not make you wrong.
Classic unherd reading experience here. A sensible, balanced article and what’s at the top of the comments? A massive ad hominem attack that does not address the argument on its own terms. Respect to the unherd editors – don’t cave in to this lot. They want this outlet to be another capital-friendly churning ground of culture warmongering that has no interest in solving the huge economic problems this country faces and would rather we worried about dwindling numbers of refugees ‘invading’ our country than taking on the wealthy interests currently choking our productivity, livelihoods and dignity in working, cheerfully breaking our families and communities down until every last bit of shareholder value has been extracted from us.
“wealthy interests currently choking our productivity, livelihoods and dignity in working, cheerfully breaking our families and communities down until every last bit of shareholder value has been extracted from us”
… whilst promoting open borders policies that inflate rents and house prices, degrade public services and push down wages at the same time as trying to deflect from this activity by pretending to be altruistic and compassionate.
I’m not actually in favour of open borders. The single hope I had in Brexit was that by reducing our access to cheap workers it might increase the bargaining power of labour and kickstart the high wage economy the Tories like to promise but never give. But this issue seems to be about aslylum seekers, whose applications to Britain are actually reducing. Braverman admitted that the law she is passing violates a human rights convention that Britain led the signing of (Chruchill also keen on human rights) – and now we are breaking this in the name of one party’s political desperation masquerading as patriotism and indeed it is the patriot in me that most dislikes what she is doing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXqVGtxFppQ
And from the fact you did not directly challenge the part of my comment you quoted, can I assume you also think that our current problems are as much a consequence of the battle between work and wealth as they might be of that between the woke and the broke? (although the anti-wokies do seem to be well represented among the super-rich..)
“And from the fact you did not directly challenge the part of my comment you quoted”
Of course I did – by pointing out that it’s wealthy ‘progressives’ who are actually the ones destroying the lives of working people by insisting on open borders policies which enrich rent seekers – like Lineker et al – at the expense of the rest of us.
It was the same with Brexit: what is ‘free movement of labour and capital’ if it’s not class war? Yet the endless propaganda of the plutocratic ‘left’ brutally stigmatises anyone who opposes their parasitic, corporatist agenda with every disgusting epithet they can come up with.
Fortunately, at last, the worm is turning.
You really see high rates of immigration as a greater threat to living standards than say the fact many companies don’t want to pay a living wage or refuse to lower gas bills despite record profits? Or the fact that, as Roger Scruton admitted when he co-chaired the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission, there are many wealthy vested interests (connected with the Tory party) blocking the building of council housing for those who need it?
I don’t agree with unlimited immigration as I’ve said, but the discussion about whether immigrants enrich or impoverish us seems far more contestable than whether rent seekers do…
Also, Braverman is going after the 35,000 or so immigrants who arrive here illegally. I don’t understand the controversy firstly because of numbers and secondly because of the nature of these arrivals. This group is a small portion of the overall number of 330,000 annual arrivals, largely made up of Ukranians, Hong Kongers and Afghans (the second group fleeing a colony and the third a war we helped create) who are in a similar situation to many of the 35,000 illegal arrivals targetted by Braverman. Most of these, once processed, are granted asylum, so why should we treat them any differently to the Ukranians, Hong Kongers and Afghans who are also all fleeing oppression? And if we should, what is their essential difference with those arriving illegally? And then there’s the possible fact beneath the phrase ‘arriving illegally’ – i.e. just because you *arrived* illegally doesn’t mean you *are* illegal. Many with a legal right to claim asylum do not have the means to find a legal route (mainly because the UK has been hopeless at making itself accessible).
And so for all these reasons I cannot for the life of me get as upset with people arriving here as I do with the elites who run and rent the place!
What experience do you have of the mainly working class towns that have had huge numbers of illegal immigrants foisted on them? As much experience as Lineker, perhaps?
Each passing month, criminal elements are slipping across the Channel and starting to build their networks to exploit and extort other human beings, and you’d prefer to let them flourish because of a socialist agenda that seeks to bring everyone down to a level that you feel comfortable with?
Turkish and Albanian gangs are already fighting over control of certain parts of London. We’re basically allowing the worst elements of societies whose values are antithetical to ours to succeed at our expense; that is, until the planned legislation becomes law. It’s the only hope we have of putting a stop to this before it’s too late. Try using your arguments against someone whose grasp of the finer points of socialist rhetoric doesn’t quite match your sensitivities.
Not much (I live in the ‘socialist’ Netherlands where higher wages and lower rents means that as a young person I can still hope to support a family) – but that doesn’t matter because I’ve said that immigration can be a problem, but that it is not the *main* problem. I’m just asking for a concession from some of you here that immigrants cannot be the central reason say 1 in 4 children in the UK now live in poverty, as do 8 million working age adults. Or that we have lower productivity levels than most other western European countries (because of an economy that encourages speculation and asset-hoarding), as prominent small c conservatives (Hichens and Scruton) whom I suspect you admire, have admitted in the past. And in what way are a ‘living wage’ and ‘affordable housing’ examples of the ‘finer points of socialist rhetoric?’ I’m interested in building a more resilient and productive form of capitalism that gives people a stake in society and the future. I suspect those suggestions would go down very well with this imagined ‘someone’ to whom I’d apparently sound unpalatably elitist.
Not much (I live in the ‘socialist’ Netherlands where higher wages and lower rents means that as a young person I can still hope to support a family) – but that doesn’t matter because I’ve said that immigration can be a problem, but that it is not the *main* problem. I’m just asking for a concession from some of you here that immigrants cannot be the central reason say 1 in 4 children in the UK now live in poverty, as do 8 million working age adults. Or that we have lower productivity levels than most other western European countries (because of an economy that encourages speculation and asset-hoarding), as prominent small c conservatives (Hichens and Scruton) whom I suspect you admire, have admitted in the past. And in what way are a ‘living wage’ and ‘affordable housing’ examples of the ‘finer points of socialist rhetoric?’ I’m interested in building a more resilient and productive form of capitalism that gives people a stake in society and the future. I suspect those suggestions would go down very well with this imagined ‘someone’ to whom I’d apparently sound unpalatably elitist.
“Braverman is going after the 35,000 or so immigrants who arrive here illegally”
Where do you get that figure from?
https://www.dw.com/en/uk-immigration-nearly-triples-despite-brexit-promises/a-63878757
Ok so it’s gone up to 45,000 in the last year – I agree this is an issue that needs to be addressed, but if you believe that the high rents and the low wages suffered in this country are purely the result of immigration then we have a fundamental disagreement. Have you ever considered that those who own most of the media have an interest in you directing your anger at immigrants (who often – i’m not saying always – often, do make a contribution, and work same as me and you) rather than at the owners of papers, companies and houses who do *not* have to work for their money and would rather you were angry about people fleeing disaster than with their greed?
https://www.dw.com/en/uk-immigration-nearly-triples-despite-brexit-promises/a-63878757
Ok so it’s gone up to 45,000 in the last year – I agree this is an issue that needs to be addressed, but if you believe that the high rents and the low wages suffered in this country are purely the result of immigration then we have a fundamental disagreement. Have you ever considered that those who own most of the media have an interest in you directing your anger at immigrants (who often – i’m not saying always – often, do make a contribution, and work same as me and you) rather than at the owners of papers, companies and houses who do *not* have to work for their money and would rather you were angry about people fleeing disaster than with their greed?
“Poor? Stupid? Racist? Then don’t listen to a pampered white liberal like me.
‘It’s all right for you,’ say the white underclass. And it is all right for us – very much so.
Establishment liberals have it every way. When was the last time a white newspaper editor, a barrister or a white Minister felt his job was threatened by black or Asian rivals?
When we talked about this at an Observer meeting, not a black face was visible.
Actually, that’s not quite true. There was one black guy who passed. He was pushing the coffee-trolley.”
Andrew Marr, The Guardian, February 1999.
https://www.theguardian.com/Columnists/Column/0,,311213,00.html
I take your point that immigration may be driving down the pay of unskilled jobs, but that’s also because the Tories have no interest in creating skilled jobs for working class people (who are capable of so much more than supermarket work or deliveroo deliveries – both of which I’ve done). But if you disagree that’s ok too – it is your right to go on voting for a Tory government that does nothing to improve your pay or job security (the same party that uses our tax money to pay the train companies to not do a deal with the RMT) or to create the skilled working class jobs that were promised by Labour in 2019. But no, because Jeremy Corbyn had wonky glasses we can look forward to our children living in tents outside Amazon warehouses from which they can be fired over a tannoy.
I take your point that immigration may be driving down the pay of unskilled jobs, but that’s also because the Tories have no interest in creating skilled jobs for working class people (who are capable of so much more than supermarket work or deliveroo deliveries – both of which I’ve done). But if you disagree that’s ok too – it is your right to go on voting for a Tory government that does nothing to improve your pay or job security (the same party that uses our tax money to pay the train companies to not do a deal with the RMT) or to create the skilled working class jobs that were promised by Labour in 2019. But no, because Jeremy Corbyn had wonky glasses we can look forward to our children living in tents outside Amazon warehouses from which they can be fired over a tannoy.
What experience do you have of the mainly working class towns that have had huge numbers of illegal immigrants foisted on them? As much experience as Lineker, perhaps?
Each passing month, criminal elements are slipping across the Channel and starting to build their networks to exploit and extort other human beings, and you’d prefer to let them flourish because of a socialist agenda that seeks to bring everyone down to a level that you feel comfortable with?
Turkish and Albanian gangs are already fighting over control of certain parts of London. We’re basically allowing the worst elements of societies whose values are antithetical to ours to succeed at our expense; that is, until the planned legislation becomes law. It’s the only hope we have of putting a stop to this before it’s too late. Try using your arguments against someone whose grasp of the finer points of socialist rhetoric doesn’t quite match your sensitivities.
“Braverman is going after the 35,000 or so immigrants who arrive here illegally”
Where do you get that figure from?
“Poor? Stupid? Racist? Then don’t listen to a pampered white liberal like me.
‘It’s all right for you,’ say the white underclass. And it is all right for us – very much so.
Establishment liberals have it every way. When was the last time a white newspaper editor, a barrister or a white Minister felt his job was threatened by black or Asian rivals?
When we talked about this at an Observer meeting, not a black face was visible.
Actually, that’s not quite true. There was one black guy who passed. He was pushing the coffee-trolley.”
Andrew Marr, The Guardian, February 1999.
https://www.theguardian.com/Columnists/Column/0,,311213,00.html
You really see high rates of immigration as a greater threat to living standards than say the fact many companies don’t want to pay a living wage or refuse to lower gas bills despite record profits? Or the fact that, as Roger Scruton admitted when he co-chaired the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission, there are many wealthy vested interests (connected with the Tory party) blocking the building of council housing for those who need it?
I don’t agree with unlimited immigration as I’ve said, but the discussion about whether immigrants enrich or impoverish us seems far more contestable than whether rent seekers do…
Also, Braverman is going after the 35,000 or so immigrants who arrive here illegally. I don’t understand the controversy firstly because of numbers and secondly because of the nature of these arrivals. This group is a small portion of the overall number of 330,000 annual arrivals, largely made up of Ukranians, Hong Kongers and Afghans (the second group fleeing a colony and the third a war we helped create) who are in a similar situation to many of the 35,000 illegal arrivals targetted by Braverman. Most of these, once processed, are granted asylum, so why should we treat them any differently to the Ukranians, Hong Kongers and Afghans who are also all fleeing oppression? And if we should, what is their essential difference with those arriving illegally? And then there’s the possible fact beneath the phrase ‘arriving illegally’ – i.e. just because you *arrived* illegally doesn’t mean you *are* illegal. Many with a legal right to claim asylum do not have the means to find a legal route (mainly because the UK has been hopeless at making itself accessible).
And so for all these reasons I cannot for the life of me get as upset with people arriving here as I do with the elites who run and rent the place!
“And from the fact you did not directly challenge the part of my comment you quoted”
Of course I did – by pointing out that it’s wealthy ‘progressives’ who are actually the ones destroying the lives of working people by insisting on open borders policies which enrich rent seekers – like Lineker et al – at the expense of the rest of us.
It was the same with Brexit: what is ‘free movement of labour and capital’ if it’s not class war? Yet the endless propaganda of the plutocratic ‘left’ brutally stigmatises anyone who opposes their parasitic, corporatist agenda with every disgusting epithet they can come up with.
Fortunately, at last, the worm is turning.
Rishi Sunak followed up his tweet with a fuller and excellent analysis of ILLEGAL immigration, viewing with compassion the loss of lives in the channel but also touching on the points made above.
This submission was printed down the side of a Sky News items but was not broadcast, as far as I can tell, on the BBC. It would have put the man’s criticism into context and thus reduced the sensation he craved and which the Sports’ producers wanted to promote..
He has now been reinstated and the BBC has apologised for suspending him – without his having to retract his likening our elected government to the Nazi regime in the 1930s.
I’m not actually in favour of open borders. The single hope I had in Brexit was that by reducing our access to cheap workers it might increase the bargaining power of labour and kickstart the high wage economy the Tories like to promise but never give. But this issue seems to be about aslylum seekers, whose applications to Britain are actually reducing. Braverman admitted that the law she is passing violates a human rights convention that Britain led the signing of (Chruchill also keen on human rights) – and now we are breaking this in the name of one party’s political desperation masquerading as patriotism and indeed it is the patriot in me that most dislikes what she is doing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXqVGtxFppQ
And from the fact you did not directly challenge the part of my comment you quoted, can I assume you also think that our current problems are as much a consequence of the battle between work and wealth as they might be of that between the woke and the broke? (although the anti-wokies do seem to be well represented among the super-rich..)
Rishi Sunak followed up his tweet with a fuller and excellent analysis of ILLEGAL immigration, viewing with compassion the loss of lives in the channel but also touching on the points made above.
This submission was printed down the side of a Sky News items but was not broadcast, as far as I can tell, on the BBC. It would have put the man’s criticism into context and thus reduced the sensation he craved and which the Sports’ producers wanted to promote..
He has now been reinstated and the BBC has apologised for suspending him – without his having to retract his likening our elected government to the Nazi regime in the 1930s.
You need counselling before it’s too late!
The irony
Too late for me! What about you?
You haven’t contributed much today.
Pah. Most of my comments are in the green. There’s something wrong.
Pah. Most of my comments are in the green. There’s something wrong.
The irony
Too late for me! What about you?
You haven’t contributed much today.
The irony
If you’re paying I’ll do it! Though not quite sure what my psychological ill would be apart from not being able to fit in a BBC-bashing echo chamber!
The irony
If you’re paying I’ll do it! Though not quite sure what my psychological ill would be apart from not being able to fit in a BBC-bashing echo chamber!
Agree entirely. I read unherd for the variety of opinions set out in interesting articles – some of which I agree with and others not so much (radical thinking I know).
Once you get to the comments section you realise that, at least the most “vocal” readers, haven’t quite taken on board the mission statement of Unherd (https://unherd.com/about-unherd/) and were expecting something “different” in the way GBNews is “different”.
As you say, fair play to the editors so far but I do fear that with time it may succumb to audience capture and become its own little echo chamber…
Yep – could be that those unheard dissenting readers are too busy working to pay rent to the vocal readers whose rent receipts pay for their free time on here
Yep – could be that those unheard dissenting readers are too busy working to pay rent to the vocal readers whose rent receipts pay for their free time on here
Yes – you get the sense the top of the pile commenter was frustrated at not being able to savage Lineker, given how comically obvious the disparity between their treatment of left and right wing bias. The Beeb’s lawyers will have reminded them that they were on a hiding to nothing here, hence the climb-down
“wealthy interests currently choking our productivity, livelihoods and dignity in working, cheerfully breaking our families and communities down until every last bit of shareholder value has been extracted from us”
… whilst promoting open borders policies that inflate rents and house prices, degrade public services and push down wages at the same time as trying to deflect from this activity by pretending to be altruistic and compassionate.
You need counselling before it’s too late!
Agree entirely. I read unherd for the variety of opinions set out in interesting articles – some of which I agree with and others not so much (radical thinking I know).
Once you get to the comments section you realise that, at least the most “vocal” readers, haven’t quite taken on board the mission statement of Unherd (https://unherd.com/about-unherd/) and were expecting something “different” in the way GBNews is “different”.
As you say, fair play to the editors so far but I do fear that with time it may succumb to audience capture and become its own little echo chamber…
Yes – you get the sense the top of the pile commenter was frustrated at not being able to savage Lineker, given how comically obvious the disparity between their treatment of left and right wing bias. The Beeb’s lawyers will have reminded them that they were on a hiding to nothing here, hence the climb-down
Sir Kier Starmer supporting Lineker’s remarks is not surprising! He was an avid supporter of Jeremy Corbyn for Prime Minister at the last 2 Elections!!
The less said about Davos Keith the better, I think.
!!
The less said about Davos Keith the better, I think.
!!
Fabulous comment
Campbell has polluted public life in this country for far too long.
Hardly surprising, isn’t Campbell Gaelic for crooked mouth?
Hardly surprising, isn’t Campbell Gaelic for crooked mouth?
Didn’t Gary watch the documentary showing thousands and thousands of jews buried in forests all over Europe as a result of Germanys policies? This flippant comment only goes to show how ignorant some people are of the history of the world that’s infront of them, even when that history was presented as present day only a month ago. These immigrants don’t have £5K they don’t even have 5p, if 40K had £5K each or even half, that would be £100 million! Those people after traveling half way round the world have £000 pounds. Obviously not all of them are criminals, but who cares as there all illegal.
Campbell is both a nasty piece of work – and an eejit.
Superb comment.
Alistair Campbell is no saint and you’ve put that brilliantly. Small point: being a hypocrite does not make you wrong.
Classic unherd reading experience here. A sensible, balanced article and what’s at the top of the comments? A massive ad hominem attack that does not address the argument on its own terms. Respect to the unherd editors – don’t cave in to this lot. They want this outlet to be another capital-friendly churning ground of culture warmongering that has no interest in solving the huge economic problems this country faces and would rather we worried about dwindling numbers of refugees ‘invading’ our country than taking on the wealthy interests currently choking our productivity, livelihoods and dignity in working, cheerfully breaking our families and communities down until every last bit of shareholder value has been extracted from us.
Sir Kier Starmer supporting Lineker’s remarks is not surprising! He was an avid supporter of Jeremy Corbyn for Prime Minister at the last 2 Elections!!
Fabulous comment
Campbell has polluted public life in this country for far too long.
Didn’t Gary watch the documentary showing thousands and thousands of jews buried in forests all over Europe as a result of Germanys policies? This flippant comment only goes to show how ignorant some people are of the history of the world that’s infront of them, even when that history was presented as present day only a month ago. These immigrants don’t have £5K they don’t even have 5p, if 40K had £5K each or even half, that would be £100 million! Those people after traveling half way round the world have £000 pounds. Obviously not all of them are criminals, but who cares as there all illegal.
This weekend I encountered peak irony. Irony so so dense, so massive, so unstable and brilliant, it may just collapse into a singularity.
Among the various individuals voicing support for Gary Lineker, perhaps the most prominent is one Alastair Campbell who works with the aforementioned production company…and no, I’m not bothered by the conflict of interest.
No, Campbell would never march into a live Channel 4 news broadcast and demand a retraction from the BBC and a punitive response to a journalist fact checking the government’s claim of Iraqi WMD. That would never happen.
Nor would there be a parliamentary enquiry into the BBC’s coverage of Campbell’s dossier, which is all rather fortunate as it wouldn’t result in the untimely death of the journalist’s source.
Thus, the BBC would never collapse under the weight of government pressure removing any final impediment to an invasion of a foreign country where hundreds of thousands would lose their lives, the rise of terrorist groups such as ISIS and the beginning of a two decade long refugee crisis.
This is all rather fortunate for Gary as using dehumanising language is, indeed, unfathomably cruel but perhaps not quite as cruel as causing those people to be refugees in the first place. So it’s rather fortunate that his business acquaintance and number one supporter never did anything resembling the above actions as it might otherwise cause him to look like a massive hypocrite.
Definitely a Guardianista’s perspective on this subject…
Lineker is perfectly entitled to air his political views on Twitter, but the BBC should not be engaging/employing high-profile people who do.
A suspension of some sort is entirely the correct managerial decision for the BBC management to take.
Lineker is a fool. He lives a gilded life in a protected environment and has no idea of the effect that illegal immigration has on many struggling communities throughout the country. His views, to which he is entitled, are an insult to all who support the government. It’s his use of language which is unacceptable.
I think that’s a jump in interpretation SM. I suspect he does get it. The issue is Braverman indicating 100m are coming almost immediately to Dover deliberately exaggerated to generate fear and loathing, when actually she should be focusing on implementing practical policies to sort this. Lineker’s language and analogy was poor too, but if we are going to condemn we should condemn both.
Slightly separate – why do the boats keep coming when France a safe country? English language and potential family connection one reason obviously. But the other is in France they have ID cards. You can’t work as easily on the black market and not as easy to disappear. So why aren’t we doing the same? Tories had years to deduce this obvious difference and correct it. Public would go for it. The amount we share daily on-line about ourselves means we’d be fine with ID cards. The reason they don’t extol practical policies is because, one suspects, they want to keep playing this ‘scare’ tactic.
Suella Braverman never said that 100million were coming, she quite rightly pointed out that the 100 million would qualify to come under the current legislation!!
“Braverman indicating 100m are coming almost immediately to Dover deliberately exaggerated to generate fear and loathing”
How do you know that was her intention? Actually, the use of the word ‘invasion’ in this context is quite accurate.
One does not know, of course.
But she’s not naive.
Dog whistling.
Unless you’re a saint.
One does not know, of course.
But she’s not naive.
Dog whistling.
Unless you’re a saint.
Sorry Kevin – somehow managed to reply to the wrong comment. It was meant for j watson.
“Braverman indicating 100m are coming almost immediately to Dover deliberately exaggerated to generate fear and loathing”
How do you know that was her intention? Actually, the use of the word ‘invasion’ in this context is quite accurate.
Sorry Kevin – somehow managed to reply to the wrong comment. It was meant for j watson.
Suella Braverman never said that 100million were coming, she quite rightly pointed out that the 100 million would qualify to come under the current legislation!!
‘His views, to which he is entitled, are an insult to all who support the government’ – and that’s why it’s ok for the government to try and remove him as a state broadcaster? I really thought I might have to make some arguments of my own here, but it seems they’re being made for me.
Maybe you should try “making some arguments of your own” ….
Irony lost on you I see
It’s 2204 GMT Frank! You should get out of bed earlier, it’s too late for banter now.
It’s 2204 GMT Frank! You should get out of bed earlier, it’s too late for banter now.
Well they’re all over the place now
Irony lost on you I see
Well they’re all over the place now
Did the government try to remove him? Not sure there’s any evidence for that.
Not explicitly no – but do you not think it’s a fair assumption that the government, who appoint the BBC board, are behind much of its decision-making? Or at least that the BBC’s Tory donor leadership certainly weigh their decisions with the government’s interests in mind? Don’t get me wrong, I know Labour also exercised influence over the BBC when it was in power (this is why we need reform of the BBC, including a more democratic appointment process for directors), but given the cosy relationship between govt and the beeb it is fair to say that after 12 years of Tory rule we can expect a BBC that is quite compliant to this govt’s wishes.
Not explicitly no – but do you not think it’s a fair assumption that the government, who appoint the BBC board, are behind much of its decision-making? Or at least that the BBC’s Tory donor leadership certainly weigh their decisions with the government’s interests in mind? Don’t get me wrong, I know Labour also exercised influence over the BBC when it was in power (this is why we need reform of the BBC, including a more democratic appointment process for directors), but given the cosy relationship between govt and the beeb it is fair to say that after 12 years of Tory rule we can expect a BBC that is quite compliant to this govt’s wishes.
Maybe you should try “making some arguments of your own” ….
Did the government try to remove him? Not sure there’s any evidence for that.
And I suppose that’s why Andrew Neil and Lord Sugar should be kept on at the BBC (despite their overtly pro-Tory politics)? The litmus test, as you have provided us, is do they support the government?
I haven’t read any comments making that case ..
Fair point – I misread yours and Steve’s comments. Apologies. BUT, I still think that saying that high-profile BBC commentators should not be able to make ‘political views’ on their twitter commits you to suspending quite a few more BBC staff than maybe you’d like? Including of course Andrew Neil, Alan Sugar and Gary Lineker (on earlier occasions when he made the more party political comment that Corbyn should go)
Fair point – I misread yours and Steve’s comments. Apologies. BUT, I still think that saying that high-profile BBC commentators should not be able to make ‘political views’ on their twitter commits you to suspending quite a few more BBC staff than maybe you’d like? Including of course Andrew Neil, Alan Sugar and Gary Lineker (on earlier occasions when he made the more party political comment that Corbyn should go)
Of course they should. As should Lineker. However, he certainly shouldn’t be paid £1.3 million to entertain what is, by broadcasting standards, a tiny audience, whilst much more valuable services are being axed. That represents an obscene pandering to celebrity culture and is much more of an insult to licence fee payers than his airing of his fatuous and ignorant ‘opinions’.
Keep him on but pay him less? I can’t argue with that!
Keep him on but pay him less? I can’t argue with that!
Sugar is a Labour donor.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alan-sugar-gives-pound-400-000-to-labour-campaign-1943767.html%3famp
He took the Labour whip in the HoL until becoming a crossbencher in 2015, presumably in protest over the increasing antisemitism in the Labour Party.
I haven’t read any comments making that case ..
Of course they should. As should Lineker. However, he certainly shouldn’t be paid £1.3 million to entertain what is, by broadcasting standards, a tiny audience, whilst much more valuable services are being axed. That represents an obscene pandering to celebrity culture and is much more of an insult to licence fee payers than his airing of his fatuous and ignorant ‘opinions’.
Sugar is a Labour donor.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alan-sugar-gives-pound-400-000-to-labour-campaign-1943767.html%3famp
He took the Labour whip in the HoL until becoming a crossbencher in 2015, presumably in protest over the increasing antisemitism in the Labour Party.
Oh lighten up – “his views are an insult” … just because you disagree with them?
And on the one hand, you state that “he is entitled [to] his views”; and then you state that “it’s his use of language which is unacceptable”.
Do enlighten us – how does one express views without “use of language”? And which particular words used by Lineker had you reaching for the smelling salts?
To any tolerant adult, his comment was rather uninteresting.
I think that’s a jump in interpretation SM. I suspect he does get it. The issue is Braverman indicating 100m are coming almost immediately to Dover deliberately exaggerated to generate fear and loathing, when actually she should be focusing on implementing practical policies to sort this. Lineker’s language and analogy was poor too, but if we are going to condemn we should condemn both.
Slightly separate – why do the boats keep coming when France a safe country? English language and potential family connection one reason obviously. But the other is in France they have ID cards. You can’t work as easily on the black market and not as easy to disappear. So why aren’t we doing the same? Tories had years to deduce this obvious difference and correct it. Public would go for it. The amount we share daily on-line about ourselves means we’d be fine with ID cards. The reason they don’t extol practical policies is because, one suspects, they want to keep playing this ‘scare’ tactic.
‘His views, to which he is entitled, are an insult to all who support the government’ – and that’s why it’s ok for the government to try and remove him as a state broadcaster? I really thought I might have to make some arguments of my own here, but it seems they’re being made for me.
And I suppose that’s why Andrew Neil and Lord Sugar should be kept on at the BBC (despite their overtly pro-Tory politics)? The litmus test, as you have provided us, is do they support the government?
Oh lighten up – “his views are an insult” … just because you disagree with them?
And on the one hand, you state that “he is entitled [to] his views”; and then you state that “it’s his use of language which is unacceptable”.
Do enlighten us – how does one express views without “use of language”? And which particular words used by Lineker had you reaching for the smelling salts?
To any tolerant adult, his comment was rather uninteresting.
Will you be making the same point about likes of Sugar, Portillo et al? Or fact a Chairman knee deep in sorting loans for a PM. or an MD an ex Tory councillor. Or how Tory spin doctor promoted to the Board.
Spare us the self righteousness about Lineker and be consistent if one wants to adopt this line in the sand. IMO though public well able to differentiate between a light entertainer making outside work comment and a political correspondent/broadcaster who must demonstrate impartiality.
Strange that so many of those complaining about Tory Appointments to the BBC had no problem with Tony Blair appointing Gavyn Davies as Chairman and Greg d**e as Director General of the BBC, both prominent Labour supporters and donors!
Yes this is an important point and is why I think the BBC needs to be reformed (*not* ditched). One urgent reform would be of course making it more independent of government, and allowing say the public to vote for its leadership – a proposal that is made I think in Tom Mills’ book, ‘The BBC: Myth of a Public Broadcaster.’
Yes this is an important point and is why I think the BBC needs to be reformed (*not* ditched). One urgent reform would be of course making it more independent of government, and allowing say the public to vote for its leadership – a proposal that is made I think in Tom Mills’ book, ‘The BBC: Myth of a Public Broadcaster.’
Strange that so many of those complaining about Tory Appointments to the BBC had no problem with Tony Blair appointing Gavyn Davies as Chairman and Greg d**e as Director General of the BBC, both prominent Labour supporters and donors!
Is this not like saying “Professor X is perfectly entitled to air his political views on Twitter, but the University of East Cheam should not be engaging/employing people who do”? Mr Lineker is nor a journalist, so I think it should be perfectly ok for him to express political views. My issue with him is not his disagreement with government policy (which he entitled to do), but his employing the same old tired trope of 1930s Germany, which is totally wrong when applied to Ms Braveman’s language and policies. I’m sure that, had this come from a “Right” persective aimed at a SJW, then it would be called “hate-speech”.
What is useful is the fact that what I, and I suspect many here, have thought for some time, that the BBC is swayed in their operations by thier employees, has now been shown openly.
I agree with you with the exception that I am not forced to pay Professor Xs salary.
I would also hope that any educationally oriented organisation would try to encourage some balance in the political leanings of its staff. I won’t be holding my breath on that either.
Yes, using a Holocaust metaphor was pathetic and for that alone he should be dismissed.
I assume, if we look back, that we’ll find a comment from you saying Boris Johnson should be sacked when he called the EU a ‘Nazi Superstate’. Lineker’s point is that dehumanising and demonising language has consequences and history shows that. The aim of the latest bill and the accompanying rhetoric is to fire up a Culture War and create division and hatred, whatever the consequences, not to solve a problem.
Wish somebody could explain to me, what Lineker meant by saying that S.Braverman and the government were using dehumanising and demonising language to stop illegal migrants to take the treacherous journey from France to the U.K.? Maybe I missed something. There isn’t even a shred of similarity to Germany of the 30s, when the Nazis took control of the country, and German Jews were starting to lose high profile jobs(civil servants, judges, doctors) and were forced to wear the Star of David, therefore becoming second class citizens. Eventually they ended up being transported in cattle trains to concentration camps in the early 40s, where they were gassed or died of horrible diseases. It really proves that most of Lineker’s high profile fans have no clue about Nazi Germany and history in general.
“Wish somebody could explain to me, what Lineker meant”
“Look at me. Look at me. Look at me. No, no, no don’t look at them. Look at me. Over here with the jug ears and goatee. That’s me.”
“Wish somebody could explain to me, what Lineker meant”
“Look at me. Look at me. Look at me. No, no, no don’t look at them. Look at me. Over here with the jug ears and goatee. That’s me.”
Did Boris really say that?
If so he is an even bigger buffoon than I took him for!
Wish somebody could explain to me, what Lineker meant by saying that S.Braverman and the government were using dehumanising and demonising language to stop illegal migrants to take the treacherous journey from France to the U.K.? Maybe I missed something. There isn’t even a shred of similarity to Germany of the 30s, when the Nazis took control of the country, and German Jews were starting to lose high profile jobs(civil servants, judges, doctors) and were forced to wear the Star of David, therefore becoming second class citizens. Eventually they ended up being transported in cattle trains to concentration camps in the early 40s, where they were gassed or died of horrible diseases. It really proves that most of Lineker’s high profile fans have no clue about Nazi Germany and history in general.
Did Boris really say that?
If so he is an even bigger buffoon than I took him for!
It was not a holocaust metaphor – he was talking about *language* not actions
You are ‘splitting hairs’.
Am I? I’m not saying I fully agree with him but criticising the language used to justify a policy is quite sharply different to criticising the policy itself. And though I agree with much of what Stephanie says about how far removed we are from Nazi Germany (of course), our tearing up of the EU convention of human rights that could be required for Braverman’s bill is in some ways a rebuking of our commitment to a more humane future after the horrors of WWII, which is what that convention was. So although we are far from going back to the 1930s, I think Lineker is right that this signals a *step* back in that direction.
Am I? I’m not saying I fully agree with him but criticising the language used to justify a policy is quite sharply different to criticising the policy itself. And though I agree with much of what Stephanie says about how far removed we are from Nazi Germany (of course), our tearing up of the EU convention of human rights that could be required for Braverman’s bill is in some ways a rebuking of our commitment to a more humane future after the horrors of WWII, which is what that convention was. So although we are far from going back to the 1930s, I think Lineker is right that this signals a *step* back in that direction.
You are ‘splitting hairs’.
Also a bit nasty as her husband is Jewish.
…and members of his family perished in the holocaust… rather beyond “nasty”, and well towards vile…as well as displaying total historical illiteracy and the intelligence one might expect from a man paid to think with his feet, not his brain…
…and members of his family perished in the holocaust… rather beyond “nasty”, and well towards vile…as well as displaying total historical illiteracy and the intelligence one might expect from a man paid to think with his feet, not his brain…
…not least because his jibe was aimed at a Woman from an Immigrant family, married to a Jewish Man, numbers of whose family perished in the Holocaust…and they have young children…I’d say Lineker’s assertion was pretty vile on those grounds alone…leaving aside the utter stupidity of a comparison between a Minister in a democratically elected Government seeking to manage migrants with no apparent right to be here (France is a safe country, nobody is at risk of “harm and persecution” there)…
…and decisions taken by an overtly fascist Government to remove the civil rights, property and ultimately the lives of a group of their own citizens who had been resident there for many centuries…
…no reason why Lineker shouldn’t make offensive, obnoxious and half-witted assertions…nor why the rest of us shouldn’t point that out…
I assume, if we look back, that we’ll find a comment from you saying Boris Johnson should be sacked when he called the EU a ‘Nazi Superstate’. Lineker’s point is that dehumanising and demonising language has consequences and history shows that. The aim of the latest bill and the accompanying rhetoric is to fire up a Culture War and create division and hatred, whatever the consequences, not to solve a problem.
It was not a holocaust metaphor – he was talking about *language* not actions
Also a bit nasty as her husband is Jewish.
…not least because his jibe was aimed at a Woman from an Immigrant family, married to a Jewish Man, numbers of whose family perished in the Holocaust…and they have young children…I’d say Lineker’s assertion was pretty vile on those grounds alone…leaving aside the utter stupidity of a comparison between a Minister in a democratically elected Government seeking to manage migrants with no apparent right to be here (France is a safe country, nobody is at risk of “harm and persecution” there)…
…and decisions taken by an overtly fascist Government to remove the civil rights, property and ultimately the lives of a group of their own citizens who had been resident there for many centuries…
…no reason why Lineker shouldn’t make offensive, obnoxious and half-witted assertions…nor why the rest of us shouldn’t point that out…
As I said in response to this issue the other day, Gary Lineker’s comments were clearly directed at the 1930s, which began with the burning of books, then the breaking and smashing of shop windows, the raiding of nightclubs and social entertainment venues, and the ‘othering’ of different groups of people.
The poem I quoted in that post, set out how this led to picking out people who disagreed, the artists, the intellectuals, and others; progressing to the Jewish community. and finally, the Priest who had been a supporter of the Nazi’s, until he became too vocal in his opposition to their actions towards his own creed, as his poem says ‘they came for him‘
Language is important. The term ‘invasion‘ is inflammatory and unnecessary, and if we wish to reduce illegal immigration, rather than building a facility in France which I understand is to house asylum seekers the French have already rejected; use all the money we are wasting and provide safe routes thereby, improving the means and speed by which claims are assessed, and passed or rejected.
Those rejected can then be removed within international frameworks and laws. As other countries seem to manage to do this perfectly well, I am sure we can if we have the will and use the mechanisms under international laws that are already in place. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t Winston Churchill the prime mover behind the eventual setting up the European Convention and European Court system?
Similarly, what has been done to tackle the inflammatory letter sent out in Suella Braverman’s name. Is it ok to say that she knew nothing about it and have those at Central Office, or whoever sent this, been taken to task over it? What about the provocative statements that the likes of Lee Anderson makes all the time? Shouldn’t he be reprimanded in the same way, and perhaps suspended for further investigation; rather than given his own show on a television channel? Or is free speech only for those we choose i.e. those we agree with?
Gary Lineker was not on his own in voicing concern, as he was joined in the clearly expressed opinions of the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Durham, the senior rabbi of Masorti (traditional) Judaism UK, and the chief executive of Liberal Judaism, and most of the respondents to BBC4’s ‘Any Answers’ on Saturday afternoon.
What was the saying I was taught in Sunday School, ah yes… ‘let him without sin cast the first stone‘!
Yes, Lineker’s likening of the current rhetoric to Nazi Germany is both incorrect, and to some people, hurtful and insulting. If Lineker had done his research, he could have found much better comparisons, closer to home, for example, the rhetoric in the Daily Mail of the 1930s, towards Jewish refugees fleeing Europe to come to the UK:
https://www.ourmigrationstory.org.uk/oms/jewish-refuge-and-the-nazi-regime#:~:text=A%20Daily%20Mail%20article%20from,the%20law%20to%20the%20fullest.
A Daily Mail article from 1938 (with the headline ‘German Jews Pouring into This Country’) illustrates this attitude:
Difference is present day refugees are only fleeing Macron’s EU paradise.
Well spotted – might even include this source in a lesson sequence I’m doing on the history of anti- Semitism with year 9. There’s also a very strange book written around the same time by Daily Mail columnist G Ward Price called I Know These Dictators, full of loving descriptions of Hitler and Mussolini from interviews by a man quite under their spell.
Well spotted – might even include this source in a lesson sequence I’m doing on the history of anti- Semitism with year 9. There’s also a very strange book written around the same time by daily mail columnist G Ward Price called I Know These Dictators, full of loving descriptions from his interviews with Hitler and Mussolini by a man quite under their spell.
We like to pat ourselves on the back in this country about how welcoming we were to Jewish refugees in the 1930s, with the Kindertransport and all that, but I’m afraid the reality was more complicated. You should look at this resource: https://wienerholocaustlibrary.org/exhibition/a-bitter-road-britain-and-the-refugee-crisis-of-the-1930s-and-1940s-2/#:~:text=The%20British%20Government%20and%20Refugees%20in%20the%201930s%20and%201940s&text=Some%20were%20permitted%20entry%20as,been%20collaborators%20or%20war%20criminals.
One amongst many out there if you perform the right Google search. It seems genuine refugees only existed in our imagination of the past.
This looks excellent (always on the look out for primary sources and personal stories) – thank you!
This looks excellent (always on the look out for primary sources and personal stories) – thank you!
We like to pat ourselves on the back in this country about how welcoming we were to Jewish refugees in the 1930s, with the Kindertransport and all that, but I’m afraid the reality was more complicated. You should look at this resource: https://wienerholocaustlibrary.org/exhibition/a-bitter-road-britain-and-the-refugee-crisis-of-the-1930s-and-1940s-2/#:~:text=The%20British%20Government%20and%20Refugees%20in%20the%201930s%20and%201940s&text=Some%20were%20permitted%20entry%20as,been%20collaborators%20or%20war%20criminals.
One amongst many out there if you perform the right Google search. It seems genuine refugees only existed in our imagination of the past.
Difference is present day refugees are only fleeing Macron’s EU paradise.
Well spotted – might even include this source in a lesson sequence I’m doing on the history of anti- Semitism with year 9. There’s also a very strange book written around the same time by Daily Mail columnist G Ward Price called I Know These Dictators, full of loving descriptions of Hitler and Mussolini from interviews by a man quite under their spell.
Well spotted – might even include this source in a lesson sequence I’m doing on the history of anti- Semitism with year 9. There’s also a very strange book written around the same time by daily mail columnist G Ward Price called I Know These Dictators, full of loving descriptions from his interviews with Hitler and Mussolini by a man quite under their spell.
I agree with you with the exception that I am not forced to pay Professor Xs salary.
I would also hope that any educationally oriented organisation would try to encourage some balance in the political leanings of its staff. I won’t be holding my breath on that either.
Yes, using a Holocaust metaphor was pathetic and for that alone he should be dismissed.
As I said in response to this issue the other day, Gary Lineker’s comments were clearly directed at the 1930s, which began with the burning of books, then the breaking and smashing of shop windows, the raiding of nightclubs and social entertainment venues, and the ‘othering’ of different groups of people.
The poem I quoted in that post, set out how this led to picking out people who disagreed, the artists, the intellectuals, and others; progressing to the Jewish community. and finally, the Priest who had been a supporter of the Nazi’s, until he became too vocal in his opposition to their actions towards his own creed, as his poem says ‘they came for him‘
Language is important. The term ‘invasion‘ is inflammatory and unnecessary, and if we wish to reduce illegal immigration, rather than building a facility in France which I understand is to house asylum seekers the French have already rejected; use all the money we are wasting and provide safe routes thereby, improving the means and speed by which claims are assessed, and passed or rejected.
Those rejected can then be removed within international frameworks and laws. As other countries seem to manage to do this perfectly well, I am sure we can if we have the will and use the mechanisms under international laws that are already in place. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t Winston Churchill the prime mover behind the eventual setting up the European Convention and European Court system?
Similarly, what has been done to tackle the inflammatory letter sent out in Suella Braverman’s name. Is it ok to say that she knew nothing about it and have those at Central Office, or whoever sent this, been taken to task over it? What about the provocative statements that the likes of Lee Anderson makes all the time? Shouldn’t he be reprimanded in the same way, and perhaps suspended for further investigation; rather than given his own show on a television channel? Or is free speech only for those we choose i.e. those we agree with?
Gary Lineker was not on his own in voicing concern, as he was joined in the clearly expressed opinions of the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Durham, the senior rabbi of Masorti (traditional) Judaism UK, and the chief executive of Liberal Judaism, and most of the respondents to BBC4’s ‘Any Answers’ on Saturday afternoon.
What was the saying I was taught in Sunday School, ah yes… ‘let him without sin cast the first stone‘!
Yes, Lineker’s likening of the current rhetoric to Nazi Germany is both incorrect, and to some people, hurtful and insulting. If Lineker had done his research, he could have found much better comparisons, closer to home, for example, the rhetoric in the Daily Mail of the 1930s, towards Jewish refugees fleeing Europe to come to the UK:
https://www.ourmigrationstory.org.uk/oms/jewish-refuge-and-the-nazi-regime#:~:text=A%20Daily%20Mail%20article%20from,the%20law%20to%20the%20fullest.
A Daily Mail article from 1938 (with the headline ‘German Jews Pouring into This Country’) illustrates this attitude:
Lineker is as entitled to free speech as anyone else. What’s extraordinary is that anyone pays attention.
Lineker is a fool. He lives a gilded life in a protected environment and has no idea of the effect that illegal immigration has on many struggling communities throughout the country. His views, to which he is entitled, are an insult to all who support the government. It’s his use of language which is unacceptable.
Will you be making the same point about likes of Sugar, Portillo et al? Or fact a Chairman knee deep in sorting loans for a PM. or an MD an ex Tory councillor. Or how Tory spin doctor promoted to the Board.
Spare us the self righteousness about Lineker and be consistent if one wants to adopt this line in the sand. IMO though public well able to differentiate between a light entertainer making outside work comment and a political correspondent/broadcaster who must demonstrate impartiality.
Is this not like saying “Professor X is perfectly entitled to air his political views on Twitter, but the University of East Cheam should not be engaging/employing people who do”? Mr Lineker is nor a journalist, so I think it should be perfectly ok for him to express political views. My issue with him is not his disagreement with government policy (which he entitled to do), but his employing the same old tired trope of 1930s Germany, which is totally wrong when applied to Ms Braveman’s language and policies. I’m sure that, had this come from a “Right” persective aimed at a SJW, then it would be called “hate-speech”.
What is useful is the fact that what I, and I suspect many here, have thought for some time, that the BBC is swayed in their operations by thier employees, has now been shown openly.
Lineker is as entitled to free speech as anyone else. What’s extraordinary is that anyone pays attention.
Definitely a Guardianista’s perspective on this subject…
Lineker is perfectly entitled to air his political views on Twitter, but the BBC should not be engaging/employing high-profile people who do.
A suspension of some sort is entirely the correct managerial decision for the BBC management to take.
I don’t wish to be too picky, but in what way is the BBC free-to-air? I, and many others, pay a licence fee. I pay less to Amazon (and watch it a lot more), but I’m assuming their football coverage wouldn’t be classed as free-to-air.
I don’t wish to be too picky, but in what way is the BBC free-to-air? I, and many others, pay a licence fee. I pay less to Amazon (and watch it a lot more), but I’m assuming their football coverage wouldn’t be classed as free-to-air.
This whole situation is it seems to me a classic example of the tiny little Twitter bubble that celebrities, politicians and journalists live in being mistaken for the world that we all inhabit.
What was the BBC thinking? I can’t help feeling someone in govt is leaning on the Beeb, but any fool could have told them that doing nothing is the best option. If they’d done nothing it would have all been forgotten by now.
You can’t cancel people!
As for Lineker et al, I’m more affected by the odious self-importance of the lot of them, and kind of hope they all lose their jobs to show that maybe they aren’t the ‘change-makers’ they imagine themselves
be.
The cult of personality is dying, whether you’re a tv presenter or a movie star, and it’s being driven by the utter hypocrisy of multi millionaires lecturing the hoi polloi from the safety of their mansions.
I agree, doing nothing would have been the best option. The discussion about the licence fee should have just intensified and hopefully led to make it voluntary. Who wants to be forced to pay for sports commentators, lecturing you on German history, when they probably never read a history book and just know how to advertise a package of crisps.
On the contrary, the cult of personality has never been stronger.
I agree, doing nothing would have been the best option. The discussion about the licence fee should have just intensified and hopefully led to make it voluntary. Who wants to be forced to pay for sports commentators, lecturing you on German history, when they probably never read a history book and just know how to advertise a package of crisps.
On the contrary, the cult of personality has never been stronger.
This whole situation is it seems to me a classic example of the tiny little Twitter bubble that celebrities, politicians and journalists live in being mistaken for the world that we all inhabit.
What was the BBC thinking? I can’t help feeling someone in govt is leaning on the Beeb, but any fool could have told them that doing nothing is the best option. If they’d done nothing it would have all been forgotten by now.
You can’t cancel people!
As for Lineker et al, I’m more affected by the odious self-importance of the lot of them, and kind of hope they all lose their jobs to show that maybe they aren’t the ‘change-makers’ they imagine themselves
be.
The cult of personality is dying, whether you’re a tv presenter or a movie star, and it’s being driven by the utter hypocrisy of multi millionaires lecturing the hoi polloi from the safety of their mansions.
The ironic thing is that Match of the Day is rather pointless nowadays if your soul purpose of watching it is for the football highlights. If you support a Premier League team, Sky Sports show the highlights of all the games within an hour of the match finishing on their YouTube channel. I’m not sure how many people can be bothered to listen to three ex-footballers prattle on a lot other games for the best part of an hour and a half or so.
Oops, should say sole, not soul. Hadn’t had my coffee then
But for some football followers, Bill Shankly’s dictum that “Football isn’t a matter of life and death. It’s more important than that” really would make it their soul purpose!
But for some football followers, Bill Shankly’s dictum that “Football isn’t a matter of life and death. It’s more important than that” really would make it their soul purpose!
Yes what most struck me was that regular audiences for MOTD are 2 million people. That’s pretty small beer!
I thought it’d be more too to be honest. Don’t have the figures to hand, but not sure what the comparison is to say 10-20 years ago. Interestingly, highlights ok Sky Sports seem to get near a million each and then if you factor in highlights on the club YouTube channels, that almost certainly increases further. If the BBC were to become subscription only and if MOTD is barely profitable, it doesn’t bode well for the rest of it.
I thought it’d be more too to be honest. Don’t have the figures to hand, but not sure what the comparison is to say 10-20 years ago. Interestingly, highlights ok Sky Sports seem to get near a million each and then if you factor in highlights on the club YouTube channels, that almost certainly increases further. If the BBC were to become subscription only and if MOTD is barely profitable, it doesn’t bode well for the rest of it.
Oops, should say sole, not soul. Hadn’t had my coffee then
Yes what most struck me was that regular audiences for MOTD are 2 million people. That’s pretty small beer!
The ironic thing is that Match of the Day is rather pointless nowadays if your soul purpose of watching it is for the football highlights. If you support a Premier League team, Sky Sports show the highlights of all the games within an hour of the match finishing on their YouTube channel. I’m not sure how many people can be bothered to listen to three ex-footballers prattle on a lot other games for the best part of an hour and a half or so.
Why on earth are ‘we’ wasting time discussing the temper tantrum’s of this vacuous prima donna?
Because ‘our Gary’ has been elevated into the Chattering Class – and the Chattering Class is always on the look out for something to express their moral indignation about (but not actually do anything).
Not just elevated to the Chattering Class. According to one poster on here he’s been anointed as a ‘national treasure’, which apparently gives him a get-out-of-jail-card on virtually anything.
The thing about national treasures is they can be quite precious. Always remember that.
The thing about national treasures is they can be quite precious. Always remember that.
Not just elevated to the Chattering Class. According to one poster on here he’s been anointed as a ‘national treasure’, which apparently gives him a get-out-of-jail-card on virtually anything.
Because the man aside the issue has shown up the BBC for inconsistency and that it can be lent on by right wing media. They actually turned it into a much bigger story through stupidity.
Echoes of the Jo Brand affair and the ‘throwing of battery acid’ perhaps?
The inconsistency ‘yes’. That was of course almost an incitement statement by Brand and IMO much worse and not funny.
And evident now this AM with the decision just announced
There are others.
1: Danny Baker ‘fired’ for comparing Royal birth to a Chimpanzee.
2: Billy Connolly NEVER apologies for crude jokes over the beheading of Mr Bigley, but no action is ever taken.
3. The Aforementioned Brand* creature.
4. Alan Sugar. ‘ A law unto himself.’
So why this inconsistency?
Well:-
1. Qualifies as Public Enemy No1, eg: “White Van Man”.
2. Scotch exceptionalism.
3. Lefty luvvy & former NHS worker.
4. Any criticism would be regarded as anti-Semitic.
ps. (* On first seeing her one of my grandchildren had the temerity to ask “Why did she eat so many buns?”. To which I could NOT reply.
Out of the mouths of babes etc.
All v different to Lineker’s tweet so let’s not conflate. Lineker’s tweet was about the use of Ministerial language – an entirely reasonable thing to comment upon. albeit one can disagree and debate.
And in fact as now more apparent when he’d made previous similar tweets on immigration/asylum policy in 2018 and 2016 BBC statements quickly distinguished between his paid role and his right to make such statements. The thing that changed here is the pressure put on the BBC by right wing media, right wing politicians and right wing leaders of the BBC – Davie, Sharp and Gibb. What an own goal.
Having idiotically invoked the Holocaust he should have immediately apologised.
He could then have retried with something more sensible. But no,VANITY got the better of him and now both he and the BBC look ridiculous.
Please explain how this differs from the pressure put on the Conservative party by left wing media to dump Andrew Bridgen MP for a very similar sin?
Having idiotically invoked the Holocaust he should have immediately apologised.
He could then have retried with something more sensible. But no,VANITY got the better of him and now both he and the BBC look ridiculous.
Please explain how this differs from the pressure put on the Conservative party by left wing media to dump Andrew Bridgen MP for a very similar sin?
I actually think the actual comment was anti-semitic as it conflated the Government’s intention to secure the safety of its citizens & legal residents (including imigrants who have used the correct & legal means to come here) with an attempt to commit mass murder of particular races & groups.
All v different to Lineker’s tweet so let’s not conflate. Lineker’s tweet was about the use of Ministerial language – an entirely reasonable thing to comment upon. albeit one can disagree and debate.
And in fact as now more apparent when he’d made previous similar tweets on immigration/asylum policy in 2018 and 2016 BBC statements quickly distinguished between his paid role and his right to make such statements. The thing that changed here is the pressure put on the BBC by right wing media, right wing politicians and right wing leaders of the BBC – Davie, Sharp and Gibb. What an own goal.
I actually think the actual comment was anti-semitic as it conflated the Government’s intention to secure the safety of its citizens & legal residents (including imigrants who have used the correct & legal means to come here) with an attempt to commit mass murder of particular races & groups.
There are others.
1: Danny Baker ‘fired’ for comparing Royal birth to a Chimpanzee.
2: Billy Connolly NEVER apologies for crude jokes over the beheading of Mr Bigley, but no action is ever taken.
3. The Aforementioned Brand* creature.
4. Alan Sugar. ‘ A law unto himself.’
So why this inconsistency?
Well:-
1. Qualifies as Public Enemy No1, eg: “White Van Man”.
2. Scotch exceptionalism.
3. Lefty luvvy & former NHS worker.
4. Any criticism would be regarded as anti-Semitic.
ps. (* On first seeing her one of my grandchildren had the temerity to ask “Why did she eat so many buns?”. To which I could NOT reply.
Out of the mouths of babes etc.
The inconsistency ‘yes’. That was of course almost an incitement statement by Brand and IMO much worse and not funny.
And evident now this AM with the decision just announced
Echoes of the Jo Brand affair and the ‘throwing of battery acid’ perhaps?
I would just have Gdsmn. Lineker bumpering the white lines on Adair Walk at Pirbright… always seemed to do the trick…
Unfortunately Mr Lineker is not IN the Army, let alone the Brigade of Guards – so that’s about as much use as me saying that IF he were a schoolboy at Rugby c. 1929 AND I were simultaneously the Head Master there, I would cane him till he couldn’t sit down for three months. It’s neither here nor there and just, I think, another chance for you to parade your odd obsession with having been in the Guards. Which would be an odd thing for any genuine ex-Guardsman to bang on about….
What are the chances of a Guardsman making such a criticism of HMG’s immigration plans/ aspirations/ kabuki theatre to pretend there’s any reason to vote ‘Conservative’ ever again, anyway?
Tut tut 03 , it’s only a bit of banter, no need to get so excited.
However to answer your question ‘what reason is there to vote Conservative’ ever again? NONE!
ps. The Brigade of Guards vanished in 1969 when it was replaced by the Household Division. You need to improve your research.
pps. Most Public Schools continued ‘flogging’ until the late 1960’s. Perhaps you are too young to recall that?
If so try and find the late Lindsay Anderson’s (1923-1994) epic film: If….
You may even enjoy it!
N S-T* attended Sandhurst as a Coldstream Guards Officer Cadet, but on completion decided on a different career path.
(* Please correct me if I’m wrong.)
Tut tut 03 , it’s only a bit of banter, no need to get so excited.
However to answer your question ‘what reason is there to vote Conservative’ ever again? NONE!
ps. The Brigade of Guards vanished in 1969 when it was replaced by the Household Division. You need to improve your research.
pps. Most Public Schools continued ‘flogging’ until the late 1960’s. Perhaps you are too young to recall that?
If so try and find the late Lindsay Anderson’s (1923-1994) epic film: If….
You may even enjoy it!
N S-T* attended Sandhurst as a Coldstream Guards Officer Cadet, but on completion decided on a different career path.
(* Please correct me if I’m wrong.)
Unfortunately Mr Lineker is not IN the Army, let alone the Brigade of Guards – so that’s about as much use as me saying that IF he were a schoolboy at Rugby c. 1929 AND I were simultaneously the Head Master there, I would cane him till he couldn’t sit down for three months. It’s neither here nor there and just, I think, another chance for you to parade your odd obsession with having been in the Guards. Which would be an odd thing for any genuine ex-Guardsman to bang on about….
What are the chances of a Guardsman making such a criticism of HMG’s immigration plans/ aspirations/ kabuki theatre to pretend there’s any reason to vote ‘Conservative’ ever again, anyway?
Because ‘our Gary’ has been elevated into the Chattering Class – and the Chattering Class is always on the look out for something to express their moral indignation about (but not actually do anything).
Because the man aside the issue has shown up the BBC for inconsistency and that it can be lent on by right wing media. They actually turned it into a much bigger story through stupidity.
I would just have Gdsmn. Lineker bumpering the white lines on Adair Walk at Pirbright… always seemed to do the trick…
Why on earth are ‘we’ wasting time discussing the temper tantrum’s of this vacuous prima donna?
Over at the Guardian comments pages, the principal defence of St Gary, the Toby-jug of Woke, is that he’s not a News Presenter, so what does it matter if he opines on political matters. …. He is, however, the BBC’s most highly paid presenter. He is the top of the pyramid of BBC presenting, the corporation made flesh. If the Beeb’s many pronouncements on the need to follow impartiality guidelines are to mean anything, then they MUST be applied to their biggest star, or it is meaningless – surely?
If the poor, put-upon crisp-monger really feels the terms and conditions of his £1.3million contract are too onerous he is free to seek employment elsewhere.
The BBC, as a national broadcaster funded by the public, is a unique case. Sky, ITV, any of the other broadcasters are commercial ventures and their staff can blurt their insultingly-stupid, historically-ignorant opinions as much as they like. But when you’re one of the most recognisable faces of the BBC you have to follow different rules. I struggle to sympathise – if he doesn’t like it he can see if any other those other broadcasters will match his current salary.
The fact that the chattering classes have only woken up to the free speech debate when it affects Gary saying something with which they agree, tells you all you need to know about the elasticity of their principles. They were the first people to complain when Alan Sugar, another BBC presenter not involved in News broadcasting, vented opinions on Twitter with which they disagreed.
Sugar wasn’t suspended though was he. Quite an important difference you seem to ignore. It’s fine for folks to criticise the views he or a Lineker make on Twitter etc. All part of public discourse and free speech. But only the fella with the deemed left wing statement got suspended.
What an own goal, to make a cheap link, from the BBC and it’s Right supporters.
Let’s maybe look at some differences you ignored then.
Sugar, when he realised a post had caused offence, immediately apologised and retracted the tweet. He was trying to be humorous, but when he realised the “joke” had been taken badly, apologised for it.
Lineker refuses to apologise – even though his comment was offensive. To elide a govt policy on tackling ILLEGAL immigration (that would be perfectly normal for almost any country in the world) with the horrors of Nazism – thinly veiled as “1930s Germany” – he is not only ignorant of history, but belligerrent and dishonest.
Lineker has form – he has been told several times before that as one of the most public (not to mention highest paid) faces of an organisation with a charter obligation to remain above party politics, he should refrain from airing contentious political views on public platforms. He doesn’t like that – and so rather than leaving the BBC, he tests the resolve of a DG who came in with a specific remit to tackle the institutional bias of the Beeb.
Would you, I wonder, man the barricades to defend a BBC presenter who made his contentious and offensive political opinions public, if you did not agree with them?
I have no problem with him airing his opinions – however idiotic they are. But not whilst thumbing his nose at licence fee payers, his bosses and the terms of his own over-generous contract.
Precisely, having the ‘strength of character to apologise’ is what really counts.
We all, without exception, ‘drop the occasional b*llock (to use a technical term), but to refuse to apologise is simply pathetic.
Hence my did disgust at the performance of Lineker, Brand, Connolly and many other so called ‘public figures’.
at least Connolly is a good tough Glaswegian Papist jock who worked in the shipyards- In another life he could have been Lance S’arnt Connelly , Scots Guards…
He preferred 15 PARA.
TA.
TA.
He preferred 15 PARA.
at least Connolly is a good tough Glaswegian Papist jock who worked in the shipyards- In another life he could have been Lance S’arnt Connelly , Scots Guards…
Let’s assume by now you recognise the BBC had to row back here as clear inconsistency in how they apply such guidance with a number of high profile BBC light entertainers expressing right wing views and not suspended. (Note also Lineker tweeted in 2016 and 2018 on immigration/asylum policy and BBC statements at the time defended his right to do this as nothing to do with his light entertainment role). You’ve got in a lather here because you don’t like him or his views. You’ve failed to differentiate between the key points.
A separate debate about how dreadful his 30s Germany reference was – in fact many would say that Braverman and many right wing outlets language on asylum seekers is pretty close to as bad as some things coming out of Germany in early 30s. ‘Invasions’, ‘100m coming here now’ – politicians and media know exactly what this’ll stoke. We are number 18 of countries accepting asylum seekers. Language matters.
But truth is it’s all a distraction strategy. They’re not serious about solving the problem. It’s just red meat rubbish to win some votes whilst they mug people off again.
“in fact many would say that Braverman and many right wing outlets language on asylum seekers is pretty close to as bad as some things coming out of Germany in early 30s. ‘Invasions’, ‘100m coming here now’”. No, there is no evidence that many would say that. What polls we do have say they are perfectly content with what she says, and just a tiny minority of leftie extremists think as you appear to think. And typical of that group is you ‘100m coming here now’ which is not remotely what she said, nor would say, being a reasonably intelligent woman. She said that 100m would be eligible to come here according to supranational laws/rules we are currently subject to.
And I would add myself, given the degree of future turmoil in south-north migrations arising from climate change, I think one can guarantee that if things remain as they are then UK’s population by 2100 will be at least 100m more than it is now. Something needs to be done while the left continue their do nothing madness.
She did say ‘billions’ could come (when numbers – of aslylum seekers at least – are actually reducing) She admitted that the law she is passing violates a human rights convention that Britain led the signing of (Chruchill also keen on human rights) – and now we are breaking this in the name of one party’s political desperation masquerading as patriotism and indeed it is the patriot in me that most dislikes what she is doing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXqVGtxFppQ
Read Hansard – she said ‘100 million people estimated to be displaced round the world would have the right to be seek asylum in Britain. Let’s be clear – they are coming here’. Couldn’t be clearer, but you know cognitive bias can still override a fact placed fairly in front of one’s eyes.
Last year across the whole of Europe there were just under a million claims. We’re quite low down the order in number we received.
And as regards your contention on population of UK by 2100, utter rubbish, and were it true you wouldn’t be able to do anything on the law or in the channel to stop that sort of volume.
Now as it happens I think we’d all like something done to manage the problem better. We can’t carry on like this. The difference is many of us want some proper practical policies and less of the deliberately distracting rhetoric. Here’s a thought to ponder – one reason they try to get to the UK is we’ve no ID card system whereas France does. You thought for a moment to ask Braverman et al why don’t we do that? No, you’re lapping up the bone they keep chucking you. And meantime they are laughing.
She did say ‘billions’ could come (when numbers – of aslylum seekers at least – are actually reducing) She admitted that the law she is passing violates a human rights convention that Britain led the signing of (Chruchill also keen on human rights) – and now we are breaking this in the name of one party’s political desperation masquerading as patriotism and indeed it is the patriot in me that most dislikes what she is doing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXqVGtxFppQ
Read Hansard – she said ‘100 million people estimated to be displaced round the world would have the right to be seek asylum in Britain. Let’s be clear – they are coming here’. Couldn’t be clearer, but you know cognitive bias can still override a fact placed fairly in front of one’s eyes.
Last year across the whole of Europe there were just under a million claims. We’re quite low down the order in number we received.
And as regards your contention on population of UK by 2100, utter rubbish, and were it true you wouldn’t be able to do anything on the law or in the channel to stop that sort of volume.
Now as it happens I think we’d all like something done to manage the problem better. We can’t carry on like this. The difference is many of us want some proper practical policies and less of the deliberately distracting rhetoric. Here’s a thought to ponder – one reason they try to get to the UK is we’ve no ID card system whereas France does. You thought for a moment to ask Braverman et al why don’t we do that? No, you’re lapping up the bone they keep chucking you. And meantime they are laughing.
Poor assumption.
Yes assuming some basic logic and ability to disentangle different issues was optimistic.
Yes assuming some basic logic and ability to disentangle different issues was optimistic.
You wrote: “Note also Lineker tweeted in 2016 and 2018 on immigration/asylum policy and BBC statements at the time defended his right to do this as nothing to do with his light entertainment role”
And that attitude drew enough criticism that in 2020 when Tim Davie took over as DG he made it plain to all BBC staff, the viewing public and the DCMS that he was “prepared to sack presenters who make major breaches of impartiality guidelines on social media.”
Davie told MPs on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee: “Enforcement actions will be very clear, we will be able to take disciplinary action, we’ll be able to take people off Twitter. I know people want to see hard action on this.”
Pressed on how people could be removed from Twitter, he clarified that in some cases he would ask staff to suspend their Twitter accounts if they wanted to continue working for the BBC.
Gary Lineker had been serially criticised for sharing his political views on Twitter, his name was specifically brought up by MPs on DCMS committee
Davie assured them that the action taken would not depend on the stature of the star involved, but there would be a distinction between occasional contributors and those who are “the face of the BBC”.
“Social media guidelines will make clear where the lines are. If someone is a face of the BBC, I think entering into party politics seems to me not the right place to be.”
Asked specifically about Lineker again, Davie told MPs that GL “understands his responsibilities as a person within the BBC”. …. “We will issue the social media guidelines which will be clear. I would note that Gary Lineker has been very clear in his statements recently, saying, ‘I understand I have responsibilities while working at the BBC’.
“Those responsibilities will be clearly laid out. I am the director general so I am now running the show, and in my view, party political statements are not the right thing for people to be making if they are part of an impartial news organisation.”
Worth reading that line again, in the light of today’s climb down: “I am the director general so I am now running the show,” – that didn’t age well!
Gary’s brief win may turn out to be a pyrrhic victory and hasten the end of the licence fee.
Let’s see. I wonder how Portillo will react given his slots on GB News whilst also doing his train journey stuff.
I suspect Davie has lifted the lid on a ‘can of worms’, and wishing he hadn’t. Sharp I suspect much the same, esp given Sunak failure to give categorical endorsement when asked.
Licence fee – personally I’d separate off elements of the public service broadcasting from the light entertainment element, with former retaining the great British tradition with a smaller focused fee. But a separate debate. Probably won’t happen anytime soon though.
Let’s see. I wonder how Portillo will react given his slots on GB News whilst also doing his train journey stuff.
I suspect Davie has lifted the lid on a ‘can of worms’, and wishing he hadn’t. Sharp I suspect much the same, esp given Sunak failure to give categorical endorsement when asked.
Licence fee – personally I’d separate off elements of the public service broadcasting from the light entertainment element, with former retaining the great British tradition with a smaller focused fee. But a separate debate. Probably won’t happen anytime soon though.
You’re spot on and we’re lucky unherd still wants to publish fair-minded articles like this – all the more remarkable when it seems to be owned by Tory donor and hedgefund magnate Paul Marshall
“in fact many would say that Braverman and many right wing outlets language on asylum seekers is pretty close to as bad as some things coming out of Germany in early 30s. ‘Invasions’, ‘100m coming here now’”. No, there is no evidence that many would say that. What polls we do have say they are perfectly content with what she says, and just a tiny minority of leftie extremists think as you appear to think. And typical of that group is you ‘100m coming here now’ which is not remotely what she said, nor would say, being a reasonably intelligent woman. She said that 100m would be eligible to come here according to supranational laws/rules we are currently subject to.
And I would add myself, given the degree of future turmoil in south-north migrations arising from climate change, I think one can guarantee that if things remain as they are then UK’s population by 2100 will be at least 100m more than it is now. Something needs to be done while the left continue their do nothing madness.
Poor assumption.
You wrote: “Note also Lineker tweeted in 2016 and 2018 on immigration/asylum policy and BBC statements at the time defended his right to do this as nothing to do with his light entertainment role”
And that attitude drew enough criticism that in 2020 when Tim Davie took over as DG he made it plain to all BBC staff, the viewing public and the DCMS that he was “prepared to sack presenters who make major breaches of impartiality guidelines on social media.”
Davie told MPs on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee: “Enforcement actions will be very clear, we will be able to take disciplinary action, we’ll be able to take people off Twitter. I know people want to see hard action on this.”
Pressed on how people could be removed from Twitter, he clarified that in some cases he would ask staff to suspend their Twitter accounts if they wanted to continue working for the BBC.
Gary Lineker had been serially criticised for sharing his political views on Twitter, his name was specifically brought up by MPs on DCMS committee
Davie assured them that the action taken would not depend on the stature of the star involved, but there would be a distinction between occasional contributors and those who are “the face of the BBC”.
“Social media guidelines will make clear where the lines are. If someone is a face of the BBC, I think entering into party politics seems to me not the right place to be.”
Asked specifically about Lineker again, Davie told MPs that GL “understands his responsibilities as a person within the BBC”. …. “We will issue the social media guidelines which will be clear. I would note that Gary Lineker has been very clear in his statements recently, saying, ‘I understand I have responsibilities while working at the BBC’.
“Those responsibilities will be clearly laid out. I am the director general so I am now running the show, and in my view, party political statements are not the right thing for people to be making if they are part of an impartial news organisation.”
Worth reading that line again, in the light of today’s climb down: “I am the director general so I am now running the show,” – that didn’t age well!
Gary’s brief win may turn out to be a pyrrhic victory and hasten the end of the licence fee.
You’re spot on and we’re lucky unherd still wants to publish fair-minded articles like this – all the more remarkable when it seems to be owned by Tory donor and hedgefund magnate Paul Marshall
You wrote,
‘the horrors of Nazism – thinly veiled as “1930s Germany” – he is not only ignorant of history, but belligerent and dishonest.’
Absolutely true. Germany has been home to many Anti-Semites from Martin Luther to Marx, (who was NOT a Jew as he was born to converts to Lutheranism), but from 1931 the Nazis were the only real anti Semitic show in town.
I can’t help feeling that he was aware of this but was advised to make his calumny vague. Possibly he was made aware of this when he was accruing more O Levels than Rodney Trotter.
Precisely, having the ‘strength of character to apologise’ is what really counts.
We all, without exception, ‘drop the occasional b*llock (to use a technical term), but to refuse to apologise is simply pathetic.
Hence my did disgust at the performance of Lineker, Brand, Connolly and many other so called ‘public figures’.
Let’s assume by now you recognise the BBC had to row back here as clear inconsistency in how they apply such guidance with a number of high profile BBC light entertainers expressing right wing views and not suspended. (Note also Lineker tweeted in 2016 and 2018 on immigration/asylum policy and BBC statements at the time defended his right to do this as nothing to do with his light entertainment role). You’ve got in a lather here because you don’t like him or his views. You’ve failed to differentiate between the key points.
A separate debate about how dreadful his 30s Germany reference was – in fact many would say that Braverman and many right wing outlets language on asylum seekers is pretty close to as bad as some things coming out of Germany in early 30s. ‘Invasions’, ‘100m coming here now’ – politicians and media know exactly what this’ll stoke. We are number 18 of countries accepting asylum seekers. Language matters.
But truth is it’s all a distraction strategy. They’re not serious about solving the problem. It’s just red meat rubbish to win some votes whilst they mug people off again.
You wrote,
‘the horrors of Nazism – thinly veiled as “1930s Germany” – he is not only ignorant of history, but belligerent and dishonest.’
Absolutely true. Germany has been home to many Anti-Semites from Martin Luther to Marx, (who was NOT a Jew as he was born to converts to Lutheranism), but from 1931 the Nazis were the only real anti Semitic show in town.
I can’t help feeling that he was aware of this but was advised to make his calumny vague. Possibly he was made aware of this when he was accruing more O Levels than Rodney Trotter.
Let’s maybe look at some differences you ignored then.
Sugar, when he realised a post had caused offence, immediately apologised and retracted the tweet. He was trying to be humorous, but when he realised the “joke” had been taken badly, apologised for it.
Lineker refuses to apologise – even though his comment was offensive. To elide a govt policy on tackling ILLEGAL immigration (that would be perfectly normal for almost any country in the world) with the horrors of Nazism – thinly veiled as “1930s Germany” – he is not only ignorant of history, but belligerrent and dishonest.
Lineker has form – he has been told several times before that as one of the most public (not to mention highest paid) faces of an organisation with a charter obligation to remain above party politics, he should refrain from airing contentious political views on public platforms. He doesn’t like that – and so rather than leaving the BBC, he tests the resolve of a DG who came in with a specific remit to tackle the institutional bias of the Beeb.
Would you, I wonder, man the barricades to defend a BBC presenter who made his contentious and offensive political opinions public, if you did not agree with them?
I have no problem with him airing his opinions – however idiotic they are. But not whilst thumbing his nose at licence fee payers, his bosses and the terms of his own over-generous contract.
“Sky, ITV, any of the other broadcasters are commercial ventures and their staff can blurt their insultingly-stupid, historically-ignorant opinions as much as they like.” Can they though? Aren’t they subject to Ofcom rules? If GBNews can be sanctioned for OTT political remarks, why wouldn’t similarly OTT remarks by Lineker also be subject to Ofcom sanction?
Phil,
I should have added “ … and their staff can blurt their insultingly-stupid, historically-ignorant opinions on their own time as much as they like.”
Obviously different rules apply to what views they can broadcast whilst on air, but what they choose to put out on social media is their own affair.
Because there is nothing anyone can say, no matter how offensively and ignorantly globalist and cosmo-left-pseudo-liberal, that will result in any censure or sanction from Ofcom. And why? Because, like the Electoral Commission, is is composed wholly of well-heeled left-liberal cosmopolitan bubble-bigots much like Lineker himself.
Best thing you have said all day 03!
Ofcom – chaired by a Tory peer. Look it up. Don’t let a few uncomfortable facts though get in the way of a bit of hate.
Best thing you have said all day 03!
Ofcom – chaired by a Tory peer. Look it up. Don’t let a few uncomfortable facts though get in the way of a bit of hate.
Phil,
I should have added “ … and their staff can blurt their insultingly-stupid, historically-ignorant opinions on their own time as much as they like.”
Obviously different rules apply to what views they can broadcast whilst on air, but what they choose to put out on social media is their own affair.
Because there is nothing anyone can say, no matter how offensively and ignorantly globalist and cosmo-left-pseudo-liberal, that will result in any censure or sanction from Ofcom. And why? Because, like the Electoral Commission, is is composed wholly of well-heeled left-liberal cosmopolitan bubble-bigots much like Lineker himself.
Fair point about the guardian having double standards in some instances. But again, does hypocrisy automatically disqualify your opinion? I’m assuming, given your dislike of two-facedness,that you would also like Michael Portillo, Alan Sugar and Andrew Neil to leave the BBC? Or is airing political views through a right-wing newspaper (that you edit) or through the BBC’s official news channels less of an affront to BBC impartiality than doing so through twitter?
Portillo is a different case, in that he is a former cabinet minister and hired as a political pundit – who clearly has a well known political standpoint because he had a long career as a Tory politician. Though of course he has no business pushing political opinions when presenting one of his rail journey programmes.
Andrew Neil has shown he is just as ruthless when interviewing politicians from either side of the aisle, so I’m not sure that criticism lands. He is the chairman, not the editor, of the Spectator, a magazine that, although right of centre, carries pieces in every edition from several left wing and left of centre writers. It exhibits far more balance in that regard than the Guardian or, for that matter, BBC News.
As for Alan Sugar, he should follow the same rules as St Gary, and face the same sanction if he continually chooses to break them.
I agree re Spectator, one of the finest magazines in English anywhere. In passing, I just saw a tweet comment by Marxist Ash Sarkar describing the Spectator as a ‘far right magazine’. There’s a minority of folk who are best completely ignored with everything they say.
IMHO ‘The Spectator’ reached its zenith under the editorship of the late Frank Johnson* (1995-1999) and has been slowly meandering downhill ever since.
(1943- 2006.)
Well to be fair to Ash, the Spectator did once publish that article defending a fascist takover of Greece https://twitter.com/KeejayOV2/status/1328707417446739973
IMHO ‘The Spectator’ reached its zenith under the editorship of the late Frank Johnson* (1995-1999) and has been slowly meandering downhill ever since.
(1943- 2006.)
Well to be fair to Ash, the Spectator did once publish that article defending a fascist takover of Greece https://twitter.com/KeejayOV2/status/1328707417446739973
You’re pulling some contortions there PT to make this argument stack. Painful to watch.
To read! Surely?
To read! Surely?
Name the left wing writers actually espousing *left wing views* in the Spectator
I’ll take your points on Portillo and Sugar. But like Frank below I’d like to know about these left-wing writers for the Spectator. Perhaps it occasionally has some left-wing commentary on cultural issues? But I can’t imagine them ever producing a piece say in favour of strikes, or one criticising the Tory party during an election campaign, being currently very close to Downing Street, as the former Telegraph columnist Peter Oborne has pointed out (they were not interested in publishing the beginning of his well documented but virtually unacknowledged article and now book on Boris Johnson’s flagrant lying)
I agree re Spectator, one of the finest magazines in English anywhere. In passing, I just saw a tweet comment by Marxist Ash Sarkar describing the Spectator as a ‘far right magazine’. There’s a minority of folk who are best completely ignored with everything they say.
You’re pulling some contortions there PT to make this argument stack. Painful to watch.
Name the left wing writers actually espousing *left wing views* in the Spectator
I’ll take your points on Portillo and Sugar. But like Frank below I’d like to know about these left-wing writers for the Spectator. Perhaps it occasionally has some left-wing commentary on cultural issues? But I can’t imagine them ever producing a piece say in favour of strikes, or one criticising the Tory party during an election campaign, being currently very close to Downing Street, as the former Telegraph columnist Peter Oborne has pointed out (they were not interested in publishing the beginning of his well documented but virtually unacknowledged article and now book on Boris Johnson’s flagrant lying)
Portillo is a different case, in that he is a former cabinet minister and hired as a political pundit – who clearly has a well known political standpoint because he had a long career as a Tory politician. Though of course he has no business pushing political opinions when presenting one of his rail journey programmes.
Andrew Neil has shown he is just as ruthless when interviewing politicians from either side of the aisle, so I’m not sure that criticism lands. He is the chairman, not the editor, of the Spectator, a magazine that, although right of centre, carries pieces in every edition from several left wing and left of centre writers. It exhibits far more balance in that regard than the Guardian or, for that matter, BBC News.
As for Alan Sugar, he should follow the same rules as St Gary, and face the same sanction if he continually chooses to break them.
“St Gary, the Toby-jug of Woke”
Haha, excellent!
Sugar wasn’t suspended though was he. Quite an important difference you seem to ignore. It’s fine for folks to criticise the views he or a Lineker make on Twitter etc. All part of public discourse and free speech. But only the fella with the deemed left wing statement got suspended.
What an own goal, to make a cheap link, from the BBC and it’s Right supporters.
“Sky, ITV, any of the other broadcasters are commercial ventures and their staff can blurt their insultingly-stupid, historically-ignorant opinions as much as they like.” Can they though? Aren’t they subject to Ofcom rules? If GBNews can be sanctioned for OTT political remarks, why wouldn’t similarly OTT remarks by Lineker also be subject to Ofcom sanction?
Fair point about the guardian having double standards in some instances. But again, does hypocrisy automatically disqualify your opinion? I’m assuming, given your dislike of two-facedness,that you would also like Michael Portillo, Alan Sugar and Andrew Neil to leave the BBC? Or is airing political views through a right-wing newspaper (that you edit) or through the BBC’s official news channels less of an affront to BBC impartiality than doing so through twitter?
“St Gary, the Toby-jug of Woke”
Haha, excellent!
Over at the Guardian comments pages, the principal defence of St Gary, the Toby-jug of Woke, is that he’s not a News Presenter, so what does it matter if he opines on political matters. …. He is, however, the BBC’s most highly paid presenter. He is the top of the pyramid of BBC presenting, the corporation made flesh. If the Beeb’s many pronouncements on the need to follow impartiality guidelines are to mean anything, then they MUST be applied to their biggest star, or it is meaningless – surely?
If the poor, put-upon crisp-monger really feels the terms and conditions of his £1.3million contract are too onerous he is free to seek employment elsewhere.
The BBC, as a national broadcaster funded by the public, is a unique case. Sky, ITV, any of the other broadcasters are commercial ventures and their staff can blurt their insultingly-stupid, historically-ignorant opinions as much as they like. But when you’re one of the most recognisable faces of the BBC you have to follow different rules. I struggle to sympathise – if he doesn’t like it he can see if any other those other broadcasters will match his current salary.
The fact that the chattering classes have only woken up to the free speech debate when it affects Gary saying something with which they agree, tells you all you need to know about the elasticity of their principles. They were the first people to complain when Alan Sugar, another BBC presenter not involved in News broadcasting, vented opinions on Twitter with which they disagreed.
Davie would have done better to focus on the politicisation of MOTD and other “non-political” BBC programmes, rather than the silly but commonplace social media outbursts of its highest paid presenter. MOTD (along with other broadcasters and the wider game) now routinely endorses political causes and positions (support for Ukraine, LGBT, BLM, mental health campaigns, diversity and inclusion and so on). These are presented as non-controversial issues that all right thinking must support, but act as a means of presenting political biases as natural and normal, and enforcing consensus where it doesn’t exist. And the government itself is not inclined to question this political political messaging because it wants to avail itself to it when it suits them.
Sadly, there is no doubt that a great many people support and even enjoy political messaging on TV, just as they enjoy politicking on social media; they only complain about what they disagree with. I am old enough to remember a time when sports programmes were only about sports, and political messaging was rare and always unintentional/unconscious. Presenters had their opinions off-air but didn’t share them on-air. Sport was a place where, for the most part, you could get away from all that. No longer.
Davie would have done better to focus on the politicisation of MOTD and other “non-political” BBC programmes, rather than the silly but commonplace social media outbursts of its highest paid presenter. MOTD (along with other broadcasters and the wider game) now routinely endorses political causes and positions (support for Ukraine, LGBT, BLM, mental health campaigns, diversity and inclusion and so on). These are presented as non-controversial issues that all right thinking must support, but act as a means of presenting political biases as natural and normal, and enforcing consensus where it doesn’t exist. And the government itself is not inclined to question this political political messaging because it wants to avail itself to it when it suits them.
Sadly, there is no doubt that a great many people support and even enjoy political messaging on TV, just as they enjoy politicking on social media; they only complain about what they disagree with. I am old enough to remember a time when sports programmes were only about sports, and political messaging was rare and always unintentional/unconscious. Presenters had their opinions off-air but didn’t share them on-air. Sport was a place where, for the most part, you could get away from all that. No longer.
The most obvious solution is to abandon the impartiality fantasy peddled by the Beeb, get rid of the TV tax and make it subs-only. I wouldn’t watch it personally but obviously many would. Right? I mean, the BBC is a unique cultural treasure. I know this because the BBC and their soft-left cheerleaders never tire of telling me.
The illusion of impartiality at the BBC that had been fading for the last 20-odd years finally disappeared in a puff of smoke with its disgraceful
government propagandapandemic coverage. By maintaining its dependence on the licence fee, the state can bring into play the useful idiots at the BBC whenever it needs to exercise control over the official narrative (thanks to Matt Wancock for making that abundantly clear to those who hadn’t yet caught on).The illusion of impartiality at the BBC that had been fading for the last 20-odd years finally disappeared in a puff of smoke with its disgraceful
government propagandapandemic coverage. By maintaining its dependence on the licence fee, the state can bring into play the useful idiots at the BBC whenever it needs to exercise control over the official narrative (thanks to Matt Wancock for making that abundantly clear to those who hadn’t yet caught on).The most obvious solution is to abandon the impartiality fantasy peddled by the Beeb, get rid of the TV tax and make it subs-only. I wouldn’t watch it personally but obviously many would. Right? I mean, the BBC is a unique cultural treasure. I know this because the BBC and their soft-left cheerleaders never tire of telling me.
Not so. Gary Lineker is entirely free to say whatever he likes, but free speech has consequences if you are contracted to (or employed by) a business that is obliged to be impartial. Bringing the business into disrepute is often a cause for a disciplinary investigation.
I guess that the Guardianistas will rally around one of their own but there are plenty of other people who will not find that persuasive.
Groan. The issue is the impartiality rule hasn’t been consistently followed by the BBC hierarchy if they were going to extend this to light entertainment Broadcasters. I’m sure by now you’ll have picked up Alan Sugar tweeted Vote Tory and added pictures of Corbyn alongside a well known dictator from the 30s/40s. No suspension and next series of The Apprentice commissioned. But one example which means the furore has been about consistency in rule application, and the lack of it. That’s why folks rallied to Lineker regardless.
But Sugar did APOLOGISE! as Paddy Taylor (of this Parish) has pointed out above.
Doesn’t that make ALL the difference?
Yes that makes a difference. All in favour of forgiveness. But Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo? You can’t deny there does seem to be some rank hypocrisy in allowing people who are avowedly close to the Tories the main levers of political broadcasting?
I’m sorry I cannot really comment as I don’t watch or listen to either the TV or the Wireless.
My one indulgence is Radio 3 , which is pretty much free of political drivel and its various hysterical pundits.
Neither do I really! Only when visiting my grandparents do I sometimes watch BBC news, where the mildness with which politicians are questioned always comes as a shock compared to the more opinionated and up and at em’ outlets I’m normally exposed to.
Neither do I really! Only when visiting my grandparents do I sometimes watch BBC news, where the mildness with which politicians are questioned always comes as a shock compared to the more opinionated and up and at em’ outlets I’m normally exposed to.
I’m sorry I cannot really comment as I don’t watch or listen to either the TV or the Wireless.
My one indulgence is Radio 3 , which is pretty much free of political drivel and its various hysterical pundits.
Yes that makes a difference. All in favour of forgiveness. But Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo? You can’t deny there does seem to be some rank hypocrisy in allowing people who are avowedly close to the Tories the main levers of political broadcasting?
But Sugar did APOLOGISE! as Paddy Taylor (of this Parish) has pointed out above.
Doesn’t that make ALL the difference?
Ah yes…. ‘Speech has consequences.’ I remember the BBC-MSM prattling out that line day after day back in 2020 whenever anyone got sacked for expressing the slightest scepticism of the BLM agenda, such as the Stoke manufacturing worker tracked down, identified and fired for organising the towing of an ‘offensive’ (!) White Lives Matter banner.
What a shit-show of a country this has become. Our Woke politics, academia, sport, media and culture make my skin crawl.
Groan. The issue is the impartiality rule hasn’t been consistently followed by the BBC hierarchy if they were going to extend this to light entertainment Broadcasters. I’m sure by now you’ll have picked up Alan Sugar tweeted Vote Tory and added pictures of Corbyn alongside a well known dictator from the 30s/40s. No suspension and next series of The Apprentice commissioned. But one example which means the furore has been about consistency in rule application, and the lack of it. That’s why folks rallied to Lineker regardless.
Ah yes…. ‘Speech has consequences.’ I remember the BBC-MSM prattling out that line day after day back in 2020 whenever anyone got sacked for expressing the slightest scepticism of the BLM agenda, such as the Stoke manufacturing worker tracked down, identified and fired for organising the towing of an ‘offensive’ (!) White Lives Matter banner.
What a shit-show of a country this has become. Our Woke politics, academia, sport, media and culture make my skin crawl.
Not so. Gary Lineker is entirely free to say whatever he likes, but free speech has consequences if you are contracted to (or employed by) a business that is obliged to be impartial. Bringing the business into disrepute is often a cause for a disciplinary investigation.
I guess that the Guardianistas will rally around one of their own but there are plenty of other people who will not find that persuasive.
This open-mouthed, the-suspense-is-killing-me question is rendered somewhat moot by the fact that viewing figures for Match Of the Day sans Lineker, pundits and commentators went UP by 500,000.
Setting aside Gary’s unnuanced political opinions, I wouldn’t miss him or his excruciating ‘puns’: I’d far rather watch a football show presented by, say, Mark Chapman.
I’d wager a great many of those 500,000 tuned in to see what it was like in this ‘new’ format. Let’s give it a few weeks and see what the numbers are like.
If reports in today’s DT are correct, the BBC has backed down.
Yes. We only watched on Saturday out of curiosity, and what we got was next to nothing, not even the signature tune; it was, in effect, a “WE STAND WITH GARY” silent protest by BBC staffers.
Yes. We only watched on Saturday out of curiosity, and what we got was next to nothing, not even the signature tune; it was, in effect, a “WE STAND WITH GARY” silent protest by BBC staffers.
Indeed. Just being able to watch the main highlights without doing my usual thing of recording it and fast-forwarding through all the claptrap by matey ex-pros was sheer bliss.
Any football journalist who needs commentary should consider a different profession. The names of the goalscorers and who provided assists for instance, are readily available on the BBC website.
Speaking of the BBC website, I think it ominous that since this blew up not a single football article has been open for comments. Perhaps the Beeb are afraid of what the average football fan might have to say on the matter.
Damn right they are.
Damn right they are.
Speaking of the BBC website, I think it ominous that since this blew up not a single football article has been open for comments. Perhaps the Beeb are afraid of what the average football fan might have to say on the matter.
I’d wager a great many of those 500,000 tuned in to see what it was like in this ‘new’ format. Let’s give it a few weeks and see what the numbers are like.
If reports in today’s DT are correct, the BBC has backed down.
Indeed. Just being able to watch the main highlights without doing my usual thing of recording it and fast-forwarding through all the claptrap by matey ex-pros was sheer bliss.
Any football journalist who needs commentary should consider a different profession. The names of the goalscorers and who provided assists for instance, are readily available on the BBC website.
This open-mouthed, the-suspense-is-killing-me question is rendered somewhat moot by the fact that viewing figures for Match Of the Day sans Lineker, pundits and commentators went UP by 500,000.
Setting aside Gary’s unnuanced political opinions, I wouldn’t miss him or his excruciating ‘puns’: I’d far rather watch a football show presented by, say, Mark Chapman.
Really sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but – as a season ticket holder at a Premier League club, and an avid consumer of televised football – this affair really hasn’t “demonstrated… just how necessary commentators are”. Completely the opposite.
I support Mr Lineker’s right to free speech, however banal and misinformed it may be at times, but MOTD is a bloated, dull spectacle these days, full of platitudes and infuriating fake bonhomie between a clique of overpaid, hysterical ex-players. In between their desperately dull “banter”, the highlights of the games themselves are ruined by the crass state-the-bleedin’-obvious commentary that drives football fans to drink.
i’d love to see the stats on what proportion of the audience record it, and then fast forward during the analysis between games. I have personally been doing that since the second recording and fast forward was available to me.
But at least it has a full complement of diversity and inclusion.
Yep. It has long been smug, self-indulgent, lazy and a parody of itself: a sort of Woke version of Top Gear towards the end of the Clarkson/ Hammon/ May era.
i’d love to see the stats on what proportion of the audience record it, and then fast forward during the analysis between games. I have personally been doing that since the second recording and fast forward was available to me.
But at least it has a full complement of diversity and inclusion.
Yep. It has long been smug, self-indulgent, lazy and a parody of itself: a sort of Woke version of Top Gear towards the end of the Clarkson/ Hammon/ May era.
Really sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but – as a season ticket holder at a Premier League club, and an avid consumer of televised football – this affair really hasn’t “demonstrated… just how necessary commentators are”. Completely the opposite.
I support Mr Lineker’s right to free speech, however banal and misinformed it may be at times, but MOTD is a bloated, dull spectacle these days, full of platitudes and infuriating fake bonhomie between a clique of overpaid, hysterical ex-players. In between their desperately dull “banter”, the highlights of the games themselves are ruined by the crass state-the-bleedin’-obvious commentary that drives football fans to drink.
Alan Sugar is not right wing. Not unless being a member of the Labour party and a major donor to them from 1997 to 2015 now qualifies as “right wing”.
An author who is 46 years old and educated at Oxford really ought to know better.
“will Match of the Day survive? Who, credibly, could present it now?”
Question 1 : Who cares ? There are plenty of other alternatives. Every product, company and organisation has a lifecycle and all eventually perish.
Question 2 : Anyone. It’s not that difficult.
There is simply no comparison between Gary Lineker and Neville Cardus. Or Brian Clough. Despite the attempts to persuade us here, Lineker is not a Premier League commentator on anything beyond football and banter with his mates.
Frankly, I don’t care where public opinion is on this matter. This is about whether Lineker is in breach of his contractual obligations to the BBC. Which, not having read the contract, I find it hard to comment on.
Oxford circa 1995…QED?
ps.Should English Literature really be a degree subject in this day and age?
Oxford circa 1995…QED?
ps.Should English Literature really be a degree subject in this day and age?
Alan Sugar is not right wing. Not unless being a member of the Labour party and a major donor to them from 1997 to 2015 now qualifies as “right wing”.
An author who is 46 years old and educated at Oxford really ought to know better.
“will Match of the Day survive? Who, credibly, could present it now?”
Question 1 : Who cares ? There are plenty of other alternatives. Every product, company and organisation has a lifecycle and all eventually perish.
Question 2 : Anyone. It’s not that difficult.
There is simply no comparison between Gary Lineker and Neville Cardus. Or Brian Clough. Despite the attempts to persuade us here, Lineker is not a Premier League commentator on anything beyond football and banter with his mates.
Frankly, I don’t care where public opinion is on this matter. This is about whether Lineker is in breach of his contractual obligations to the BBC. Which, not having read the contract, I find it hard to comment on.
Call me old fashioned, but I reckon the BBC is well within its rights to tell its football personnel not to liken government policy to Nazi policy.
Call me old fashioned, but I reckon the BBC is well within its rights to tell its football personnel not to liken government policy to Nazi policy.
Why is it ‘a bit rich’ for a former Conservative councillor to ‘preach’ about impartiality? Is it seriously suggested that political affiliations disqualify someone from understanding and underlining the importance of impartiality? Or is the suggestion that if you are on the right you can’t be impartial? Whereas if you are on the left …
No not at all – so long as your decisions on suspensions look consistent and even-handed. When they don’t then it’s going to shine a spotlight on your affiliations.
No not at all – so long as your decisions on suspensions look consistent and even-handed. When they don’t then it’s going to shine a spotlight on your affiliations.
Why is it ‘a bit rich’ for a former Conservative councillor to ‘preach’ about impartiality? Is it seriously suggested that political affiliations disqualify someone from understanding and underlining the importance of impartiality? Or is the suggestion that if you are on the right you can’t be impartial? Whereas if you are on the left …
Professional soccer is not “a powerful political force in its own right”.
It is no more than a very big, corrupt business with absurd vanity owners and a media who attempt to elevate players and their women into some kind of importance above us all. Its star system is brutal.
Its hypocrisy over Qatar was nauseating. There are, of course, many decent fans. And, unlike fans of other professional sports, some whose behaviour has been appalling.
MOTD isn’t in the top 50 of most watched programmes. Many millions don’t go to its games or care about the results.
Professional soccer is not “a powerful political force in its own right”.
It is no more than a very big, corrupt business with absurd vanity owners and a media who attempt to elevate players and their women into some kind of importance above us all. Its star system is brutal.
Its hypocrisy over Qatar was nauseating. There are, of course, many decent fans. And, unlike fans of other professional sports, some whose behaviour has been appalling.
MOTD isn’t in the top 50 of most watched programmes. Many millions don’t go to its games or care about the results.
I lost all interest in watching football when the stupid woke racist morons started “taking the knee”. Following the moral debasement of the Qatar World Cup and the Saudi takeover of Newcastle Utd, being called a Nazi by Lineker because I don’t believe in open borders has been the final straw. I don’t think I’ll ever watch a game again.
Let us hope Lineker has to pay the nearly 5 million in tax he is trying to get out of paying , by pretending he is not an employee of the BBC.
I haven’t noticed any BBC coverage of that. Yet they were all over Jimmy Carr over a far smaller sum.
That’s odd. I wonder why that is?
I haven’t noticed any BBC coverage of that. Yet they were all over Jimmy Carr over a far smaller sum.
That’s odd. I wonder why that is?
Yes to all of that.
I watch ice hockey now.
I’m getting into rugger.
I’m getting into rugger.
YES. I was hoping someone would bring up that ongoing incident of debasing national pride!
Let us hope Lineker has to pay the nearly 5 million in tax he is trying to get out of paying , by pretending he is not an employee of the BBC.
Yes to all of that.
I watch ice hockey now.
YES. I was hoping someone would bring up that ongoing incident of debasing national pride!
I lost all interest in watching football when the stupid woke racist morons started “taking the knee”. Following the moral debasement of the Qatar World Cup and the Saudi takeover of Newcastle Utd, being called a Nazi by Lineker because I don’t believe in open borders has been the final straw. I don’t think I’ll ever watch a game again.
The highlights packages on Saturday and Sunday were bliss. It saved me the trouble of having to record MOTD, watch the action and fast forward through the rest of the drivel that these highly paid (at our expense) ex-footballers produce for the delectation of those who can’t seemingly watch a game of football without being told what they’ve just seen.
It would seem the writer of this article is one of those, although i did enjoy his tale about the paradigm change in 1953. We’re at another such crossroads, and the key to the survival of football below the Premier League is indeed the introduction of a regulatory body that is fit for purpose, beyond the sinecures of those within the FA and the EFL, on whose watch smaller clubs are being left to wither and their communities left bereft of the sense of pride they have in their team.
For the hundreds of clubs in the lower leagues that need saving from financial predators and asset-strippers (who’re after the land where the clubs are situated) a new regulatory body is the last hope.
Lineker himself lives a gilded life in a protected environment, completely oblivious of the impact of illegal migration on those very same towns and cities. He’s entitled to his opinions and the right to express them, but if he thinks for one moment his views are supported by the footballing community as a whole, he’s very badly mistaken.
The highlights packages on Saturday and Sunday were bliss. It saved me the trouble of having to record MOTD, watch the action and fast forward through the rest of the drivel that these highly paid (at our expense) ex-footballers produce for the delectation of those who can’t seemingly watch a game of football without being told what they’ve just seen.
It would seem the writer of this article is one of those, although i did enjoy his tale about the paradigm change in 1953. We’re at another such crossroads, and the key to the survival of football below the Premier League is indeed the introduction of a regulatory body that is fit for purpose, beyond the sinecures of those within the FA and the EFL, on whose watch smaller clubs are being left to wither and their communities left bereft of the sense of pride they have in their team.
For the hundreds of clubs in the lower leagues that need saving from financial predators and asset-strippers (who’re after the land where the clubs are situated) a new regulatory body is the last hope.
Lineker himself lives a gilded life in a protected environment, completely oblivious of the impact of illegal migration on those very same towns and cities. He’s entitled to his opinions and the right to express them, but if he thinks for one moment his views are supported by the footballing community as a whole, he’s very badly mistaken.
Football doesn’t need taming, the English Premiership is the best league in the world and more entertaining than ever. This situation reveals more about the inadequacies of the BBC to adapt to it’s audience and British cultural changes. Also it’s entirely misplaced confidence in some it’s celebrities and what they are worth paying considering the size of the audience.
Football doesn’t need taming, the English Premiership is the best league in the world and more entertaining than ever. This situation reveals more about the inadequacies of the BBC to adapt to it’s audience and British cultural changes. Also it’s entirely misplaced confidence in some it’s celebrities and what they are worth paying considering the size of the audience.
Completely off topic, the writer mentions there are ‘shortages of fruit and vegetables’. Personally I’ve had no bother whatsoever of getting any fruit or veg that I’ve needed, much to my surprise when I visited a supermarket after this story blew up in the media and was passed around on social media by my mouth frothing remainer friends. There’s definitely no shortage of prize plums at the BBC and in the MOTD studio week in week out.
Yeah the nihilistic tone at the start of the article induced much eye rolling here
Yeah the nihilistic tone at the start of the article induced much eye rolling here
Completely off topic, the writer mentions there are ‘shortages of fruit and vegetables’. Personally I’ve had no bother whatsoever of getting any fruit or veg that I’ve needed, much to my surprise when I visited a supermarket after this story blew up in the media and was passed around on social media by my mouth frothing remainer friends. There’s definitely no shortage of prize plums at the BBC and in the MOTD studio week in week out.
Unherd, please don’t use journalists who already have a platform. One of the pleasures of your site is discovering writers I would never have encountered on basic outlets like the Guardian and the BBC like Mary H and Fazi.
Unherd, please don’t use journalists who already have a platform. One of the pleasures of your site is discovering writers I would never have encountered on basic outlets like the Guardian and the BBC like Mary H and Fazi.
Gary Lineker will almost certainly be knighted or become a Labour peer after the next UK General election.
Along with arise “Arise Sir Stanley” no doubt.
‘God’s teeth’! What have we become?
Along with arise “Arise Sir Stanley” no doubt.
‘God’s teeth’! What have we become?
Gary Lineker will almost certainly be knighted or become a Labour peer after the next UK General election.
Only a week ago Lineker et al were paying tribute to John Motson. A man who epitomised what is excellent about football commentary and broadcasting. Part of what made Motty the man he was is that he didn’t choose to share his views about other than football, as he was paid to do. I yearn for a world where newscasters read news and sports presenters presented sport and spared us there personal opinions about ought else.
Only a week ago Lineker et al were paying tribute to John Motson. A man who epitomised what is excellent about football commentary and broadcasting. Part of what made Motty the man he was is that he didn’t choose to share his views about other than football, as he was paid to do. I yearn for a world where newscasters read news and sports presenters presented sport and spared us there personal opinions about ought else.
Football is so powerful that people like Gary Lineker and Matthew Le Tissier are unsackable, no matter what they say.
Football is so powerful that people like Gary Lineker and Matthew Le Tissier are unsackable, no matter what they say.
I think the issue is more about Gary using his public persona for what should be a personal opinion but has been given rather too much weight by his sharing his opinions with everyone instead of just his own private circle. I doubt whether many people who enjoy his football commenting are particularly interested on his personal political views which merely expose his ignorance about such matters.
I think the issue is more about Gary using his public persona for what should be a personal opinion but has been given rather too much weight by his sharing his opinions with everyone instead of just his own private circle. I doubt whether many people who enjoy his football commenting are particularly interested on his personal political views which merely expose his ignorance about such matters.
Some noteworthy factual errors in this piece, perhaps indicating that sports journalists, like sports presenters, should keep out of politics.
Davie is not an former Tory Councillor. He stood for election in the ’90s but was unsuccessful. Nick Robinson’s sympathies have obviously shifted since he was a Young Conservative at university, so it’s not reasonable simply to assume that Davie’s have stayed the same across 30 years. Maybe they have, maybe they haven’t. I don’t know and neither does the author.
Contrast this with the appointment of Gavyn Davies as BBC Chairman in 2001. At the time he was a card-carrying Labour member and recent donor, and married to Gordon Brown’s right hand woman. Not to mention ex-Labour minister Joel Barnett’s seven years on the BBC Board. Oh, and ex-Labour minister James Purcell’s seemless transition from politics to a very highly paid executive role in the BBC. In reality, the great and the good who get these boardroom positions will inevitably have some political connections (sadly), but it’s typical of a Guardian writer not to give us both sides of the coin.
Likewise, the lazy and ignorant comment that Alan Sugar has right wing views. This will come as a surprise to his colleagues on the Labour benches in the Lords from his ennoblement in 2009 until 2015. He has been a cross bencher since then, I’m guessing in protest at the increasing antisemitism under Corbyn. He has also been a generous Labour donor.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alan-sugar-gives-pound-400-000-to-labour-campaign-1943767.html%3famp
Some noteworthy factual errors in this piece, perhaps indicating that sports journalists, like sports presenters, should keep out of politics.
Davie is not an former Tory Councillor. He stood for election in the ’90s but was unsuccessful. Nick Robinson’s sympathies have obviously shifted since he was a Young Conservative at university, so it’s not reasonable simply to assume that Davie’s have stayed the same across 30 years. Maybe they have, maybe they haven’t. I don’t know and neither does the author.
Contrast this with the appointment of Gavyn Davies as BBC Chairman in 2001. At the time he was a card-carrying Labour member and recent donor, and married to Gordon Brown’s right hand woman. Not to mention ex-Labour minister Joel Barnett’s seven years on the BBC Board. Oh, and ex-Labour minister James Purcell’s seemless transition from politics to a very highly paid executive role in the BBC. In reality, the great and the good who get these boardroom positions will inevitably have some political connections (sadly), but it’s typical of a Guardian writer not to give us both sides of the coin.
Likewise, the lazy and ignorant comment that Alan Sugar has right wing views. This will come as a surprise to his colleagues on the Labour benches in the Lords from his ennoblement in 2009 until 2015. He has been a cross bencher since then, I’m guessing in protest at the increasing antisemitism under Corbyn. He has also been a generous Labour donor.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alan-sugar-gives-pound-400-000-to-labour-campaign-1943767.html%3famp
I am so bored with oikball. It is of no interest.
Well said.
Well said.
I am so bored with oikball. It is of no interest.
nothing that anyone called Gary utters should be listened to, let alone discussed.
Surely an exception can be made for Sir Gary Sobers?
While I bow to no one in my contempt for Gary Waneker and his stupid mid-life crisis half-whiskers, I’d be more interested in listening to Gary Oldman or Gary Cooper than to a parody snob like you.
Are you some sort of made up comedy character, like Titania McGrath?
Surely an exception can be made for Sir Gary Sobers?
While I bow to no one in my contempt for Gary Waneker and his stupid mid-life crisis half-whiskers, I’d be more interested in listening to Gary Oldman or Gary Cooper than to a parody snob like you.
Are you some sort of made up comedy character, like Titania McGrath?
nothing that anyone called Gary utters should be listened to, let alone discussed.
Since we can’t uninvent social media, I’m coming to the conclusion that the only realistic way forward is to accept that everyone is allowed to have opinions we may not like. Lineker expressed his view outside of his day job and didn’t use MOTD to do it. Alan Sugar would operate exactly the same way. Personally I find people’s private opinions interesting and don’t believe in “cancelling”.
Concur SB, except for political commentators/Broadcasters. Andrew Neil does it exceptionally well. Everyone knows he’s right wing but you’d never know from his interviewing – to the point Bojo refused to be interviewed by him.
What was right-wing about Boris Johnson?
Oh, well actually, his fascist Covid lockdowns, I suppose.
What was right-wing about Boris Johnson?
Oh, well actually, his fascist Covid lockdowns, I suppose.
Supposing a Premier League footballer expressed an opinion on social media in favour of the government’s immigration policy – and many might be in favour. Even Alan Shearer might be? The effect of Lineker’s comments is to cast doubt on his impartiality when making comments about that player during the programme. Would he, for instance, be more scathing in his comments due to political bias?
It wouldn’t actually matter whether he could remain free of bias in that regard, the damage would be done in the public perception that he might be. For that reason alone, it’s wrong to suggest that sports commentators shouldn’t be subject to the same guidelines on social media output as current affairs presenters.
Agreed. I enjoy various writers and musicians whose political views I disagree with. I couldn’t care less what Sugar or Lineker etc think about extra-curricular topics. Far too many cancel culturists among all the right-wing idiots and all the left-wing idiots.
Concur SB, except for political commentators/Broadcasters. Andrew Neil does it exceptionally well. Everyone knows he’s right wing but you’d never know from his interviewing – to the point Bojo refused to be interviewed by him.
Supposing a Premier League footballer expressed an opinion on social media in favour of the government’s immigration policy – and many might be in favour. Even Alan Shearer might be? The effect of Lineker’s comments is to cast doubt on his impartiality when making comments about that player during the programme. Would he, for instance, be more scathing in his comments due to political bias?
It wouldn’t actually matter whether he could remain free of bias in that regard, the damage would be done in the public perception that he might be. For that reason alone, it’s wrong to suggest that sports commentators shouldn’t be subject to the same guidelines on social media output as current affairs presenters.
Agreed. I enjoy various writers and musicians whose political views I disagree with. I couldn’t care less what Sugar or Lineker etc think about extra-curricular topics. Far too many cancel culturists among all the right-wing idiots and all the left-wing idiots.
Since we can’t uninvent social media, I’m coming to the conclusion that the only realistic way forward is to accept that everyone is allowed to have opinions we may not like. Lineker expressed his view outside of his day job and didn’t use MOTD to do it. Alan Sugar would operate exactly the same way. Personally I find people’s private opinions interesting and don’t believe in “cancelling”.
Unless he is a Royal Navy officer, salvage tug sailor, fisherman or lighthouse keeper, I refuse to listen to anything that anyone with a beard says, let alone thinks.
What about reading their thoughts, on Unherd for instance? Do you think you’d be able to detect someone typing whilst sporting a beard, who held neither of those positions?
What about reading their thoughts, on Unherd for instance? Do you think you’d be able to detect someone typing whilst sporting a beard, who held neither of those positions?
Unless he is a Royal Navy officer, salvage tug sailor, fisherman or lighthouse keeper, I refuse to listen to anything that anyone with a beard says, let alone thinks.
Maybe the next Tory manifesto should propose to decriminalise the licence, privatise the BBC and float shares to the licence holders?
So I assume (judging by the comments above) that most people here would call for the immediate firing of Alan Sugar and Andrew Neil who made far worse comments about Corbyn whilst in more overtly political positions? Or is the really upsetting thing here the fact that a football presenter has forgotten his place, and should leave the politics of the BBC to the right-wingers who run it?
If you think the BBC is ‘run by’ ‘right-wingers’, you need your head examined.
Every, but every ‘news’ piece it publishes pushes, by selection or commission, its left-liberal-multiculturalist-globalist agenda. Every predictable fable of a ‘drama’ , ‘comedy’ (!), concert, sporting event – even Songs of Praise and Remembrance Sunday – now stinks of pre-fab, intersectionalist Wokery. Have you listened to Radio 4 any time in the last five years? It’s ‘racism, sexism, sexism, racism’, on and on and on and on – they are absolutely obsessed. And as for the US coverage: it might as well be dictated by Hilary Clinton and AOC, the whole lot of it. Utterly devoid of objectivity and not an honest sentence in it.
The only respect in which the BBC is ‘right-wing’ is in its brown-nosing coverage of the Windsors, its lazy rehashing of jingoistic MoD press releases and its loyally slanted coverage of whatever new war Whitehall has got us into in any given year – all of which suit the cartel of vested interests that controls UK perma-Gov just as well as the Woke stuff does.
Nailed it there. Especially comedy – it’s all gone, dumbed so far down it has been reduced to grey goo.
You can criticise what you perceive as a decline in comedy at the BBC all you like (and assume this is the result of a wokerati imposing their tastes on the unwilling listeners below), but the fact is in the 90s the BBC were forced to hand over lots of its production. Currently, as I understand, two or three (profit-driven) production companies provide the BBC with its comedy content). And as it happens, comedy – which tends to be most compelling when laughing at the powerful and sympathising with underdogs – sells better when laughing at the Tories than at minorities.
That said the decline you see may not be as I’ve described and may be happening for other reasons (perhaps a less literate public breeds more homogeneity in opinion, dampening the imagination etc)..
You can criticise what you perceive as a decline in comedy at the BBC all you like (and assume this is the result of a wokerati imposing their tastes on the unwilling listeners below), but the fact is in the 90s the BBC were forced to hand over lots of its production. Currently, as I understand, two or three (profit-driven) production companies provide the BBC with its comedy content). And as it happens, comedy – which tends to be most compelling when laughing at the powerful and sympathising with underdogs – sells better when laughing at the Tories than at minorities.
That said the decline you see may not be as I’ve described and may be happening for other reasons (perhaps a less literate public breeds more homogeneity in opinion, dampening the imagination etc)..
Except that it is ran by right-wingers
Do you mean run or RANT?
I think Frank is attempting to use the current vernacular.
He’ll be using ‘then’ instead of ‘than’ next.
I think Frank is attempting to use the current vernacular.
He’ll be using ‘then’ instead of ‘than’ next.
Do you mean run or RANT?
I don’t need my head examined, I know full well the reasons why we both see the same institution so differently (I come up against this difference every time I speak to my grandmother). The point is of course that culturally the BBC may well have moved to the left (I take Peter Hitchens’ point that there has been a moral revolution in this country which shocks older generations and whose speed I too sometimes have doubts about). BUT: in terms of economics and party politics, the BBC is clearly to me on the side of the Tories (as indeed it is normally on the side of every govt, though perhaps more so than ever, what with 12 years of Tory rule and the alleged corruption surrounding Mr Sharp’s appointment as chair). The treatment of Labour-supporting staff, and of Corbyn in particular (whose policies after all would not be considered radical on the continent) demonstrated clearly enough to me that the Beeb is deep in Tory pockets and in urgent need of reform – not ditching!
Nailed it there. Especially comedy – it’s all gone, dumbed so far down it has been reduced to grey goo.
Except that it is ran by right-wingers
I don’t need my head examined, I know full well the reasons why we both see the same institution so differently (I come up against this difference every time I speak to my grandmother). The point is of course that culturally the BBC may well have moved to the left (I take Peter Hitchens’ point that there has been a moral revolution in this country which shocks older generations and whose speed I too sometimes have doubts about). BUT: in terms of economics and party politics, the BBC is clearly to me on the side of the Tories (as indeed it is normally on the side of every govt, though perhaps more so than ever, what with 12 years of Tory rule and the alleged corruption surrounding Mr Sharp’s appointment as chair). The treatment of Labour-supporting staff, and of Corbyn in particular (whose policies after all would not be considered radical on the continent) demonstrated clearly enough to me that the Beeb is deep in Tory pockets and in urgent need of reform – not ditching!
If you think the BBC is ‘run by’ ‘right-wingers’, you need your head examined.
Every, but every ‘news’ piece it publishes pushes, by selection or commission, its left-liberal-multiculturalist-globalist agenda. Every predictable fable of a ‘drama’ , ‘comedy’ (!), concert, sporting event – even Songs of Praise and Remembrance Sunday – now stinks of pre-fab, intersectionalist Wokery. Have you listened to Radio 4 any time in the last five years? It’s ‘racism, sexism, sexism, racism’, on and on and on and on – they are absolutely obsessed. And as for the US coverage: it might as well be dictated by Hilary Clinton and AOC, the whole lot of it. Utterly devoid of objectivity and not an honest sentence in it.
The only respect in which the BBC is ‘right-wing’ is in its brown-nosing coverage of the Windsors, its lazy rehashing of jingoistic MoD press releases and its loyally slanted coverage of whatever new war Whitehall has got us into in any given year – all of which suit the cartel of vested interests that controls UK perma-Gov just as well as the Woke stuff does.
So I assume (judging by the comments above) that most people here would call for the immediate firing of Alan Sugar and Andrew Neil who made far worse comments about Corbyn whilst in more overtly political positions? Or is the really upsetting thing here the fact that a football presenter has forgotten his place, and should leave the politics of the BBC to the right-wingers who run it?
Watching football is a bonding experience and brings people together. Whilst we can grumble about elements of the game, overpaid players etc, go anywhere in the world at any time and it’s a universal language. (And a game invented here). So we shouldn’t really be that surprised how important it is to any national broadcaster. Team loyalty and bonding never better shown than when one of the weekend heroes, Ian Wright, was first to say ‘I’m out and backing Gary’. Who wanted to be seen as as scab once Wrighty had called it? Sticking together maybe one of those attributes that football does teach our young.
As regards the Lineker BBC story – the basics are not complicated. BBC leaders grossly inconsistent and now thus embarrassed scrambling for a quick climb down ladder. No surprise and very predictable the moment they acted as they did. It will probably lead to a better clarification between the difference in being a political correspondent/presenter and light entertainment. British public is well able to differentiate.
Maybe the best thing though is firstly the row continues to highlight the importance of language in public announcements. Lineker’s analogy was poor, but Braverman’s exaggeration was dangerous – 100m aren’t about to arrive in Dover. Secondly the the row scotches the baloney that BBC is some cabal of left wingers. Tory Chair and donor, ex Tory Councillor as MD, Tory spin doctor as Non Exec, all now shown up for terrible inconsistency and lack of even-handedness.
I agree. The basics are not complicated.
The BBC has policies on what its staff and contractors are able to do and this is without doubt written into their contracts. This happens everywhere and is not in any way unique to the BBC. Whether one agrees with this (and I’m not sure I do – what business is it of my employer what I do in my own time ?), this is the case and Gary Lineker will have voluntarily signed a contract with the BBC.
I’m fairly sure that the contract is confidential and that none of us know what it says (again this is normal). We do know, however, that the BBC does have guidelines about what its employees and contractors can do on social media.
Again, leaving aside the important question of whether the BBC should be engaging in policing thought crime, we are left with two questions:
Q1: Was Lineker in breach of either his contract or the guidelines ?
Q2: If so, will these be enforced ?
It really is that simple.
Leave public opinion and politicians outy of it. This is an employment issue between Lineker and his employer (I use that term as Lineker does appear to be a disguised employee of the BBC and is under investigation by HMRC for this).
The fact that the BBC doesn’t seem capable of focusing on the core principles at stake here just tells us how completely lost it it.
The fact that this has been blow up out of all proportion – is this really a lead news item ? – tells us how completely lost football is in its need to have to “take a lead” on any passing issue/bandwagon.
Lineker’s lawyers can doubtless claim that nothing he is doing is bringing the BBC in disrepute – since they’re already doing a bang-up job of doing that without any help from him.
Frankly, both sides deserve to lose here. And probably will.
Employers still run into trouble if they deploy contract terms inconsistently. ‘Custom and practice’ also important. And as now evident this AM they’ve recognised that.
It’ll probably lead to a softening of the rules overall for light entertainment presenters. Free speech important. Doesn’t mean you can’t then run into trouble with something that might clearly constitute ‘bringing your employer into disrepute’ but that’s a much higher bar to prove, and in some regards Lineker not entirely out of kilter with many of the public on this issue. In fact as things have played out it seems the action of the management hierarchy done more to bring the BBC into disrepute for poor judgment and inconsistency. Not a great couple of days for the Beeb.
*Not a great couple of days for the Tories who run the Beeb – although I’m sure you and millions of others are delighting them in thinking this is the BBC’s own fault
I’m glad to see you speaking your mind on this, but I think you’re wrong on just about everything you’ve said.
I guess you want to cancel him then
You’re starting to sound like Danielle Treille now.
You’re starting to sound like Danielle Treille now.
Glad you’re listening. I’ve said some more since so do let me know whatever it is you find particularly objectionable.
I guess you want to cancel him then
Glad you’re listening. I’ve said some more since so do let me know whatever it is you find particularly objectionable.
How is it not the BBC’s own fault ?
Yet again, they are demonstrating their double standards. They claim to have standards – and then only selectively enforce them. With a bonus sprinkling of managerial incompetence, poor judgement and lack of backbone.
It’s hard to resist the conclusion that the BBC is run not for the benefit of its customers but instead for that of its staff. Many of whom have been – and some continue to be – engaged in industrial scale tax dodging with the active encouragement and connivance of the BBC itself.
If the BBC self-destructs, they will have no one to blame but themselves. The inept way they have antagonised both sides is what should have been an internal disciplinary matter is only the latest example of how out of touch they have become.
Well I find it hard to judge how much real independence the BBC can have from a government that appoints its board (why don’t the licence payers vote for its leadership? And why aren’t more people discussing how to reform it instead of gleefully hoping to bin it? To make way for what? A load of low-quality, wind up merchant presenters following the market by peddling outrage on the cheap without any investigative rigour or sense of public interest?) and many of whose MPs have put it under pressure to suspend Lineker, though I do agree that he and a great many well-paid people in general are overpriced.
As far as I can tell, Lineker did not break any terms of his contract and so we can assume that the BBC’s actions are driven by political pressure? Although it may be they are less under the grip of the government than I assume (not that their 2019 election coverage supports that possibility)
Well I find it hard to judge how much real independence the BBC can have from a government that appoints its board (why don’t the licence payers vote for its leadership? And why aren’t more people discussing how to reform it instead of gleefully hoping to bin it? To make way for what? A load of low-quality, wind up merchant presenters following the market by peddling outrage on the cheap without any investigative rigour or sense of public interest?) and many of whose MPs have put it under pressure to suspend Lineker, though I do agree that he and a great many well-paid people in general are overpriced.
As far as I can tell, Lineker did not break any terms of his contract and so we can assume that the BBC’s actions are driven by political pressure? Although it may be they are less under the grip of the government than I assume (not that their 2019 election coverage supports that possibility)
I’m glad to see you speaking your mind on this, but I think you’re wrong on just about everything you’ve said.
How is it not the BBC’s own fault ?
Yet again, they are demonstrating their double standards. They claim to have standards – and then only selectively enforce them. With a bonus sprinkling of managerial incompetence, poor judgement and lack of backbone.
It’s hard to resist the conclusion that the BBC is run not for the benefit of its customers but instead for that of its staff. Many of whom have been – and some continue to be – engaged in industrial scale tax dodging with the active encouragement and connivance of the BBC itself.
If the BBC self-destructs, they will have no one to blame but themselves. The inept way they have antagonised both sides is what should have been an internal disciplinary matter is only the latest example of how out of touch they have become.
*Not a great couple of days for the Tories who run the Beeb – although I’m sure you and millions of others are delighting them in thinking this is the BBC’s own fault
Employers still run into trouble if they deploy contract terms inconsistently. ‘Custom and practice’ also important. And as now evident this AM they’ve recognised that.
It’ll probably lead to a softening of the rules overall for light entertainment presenters. Free speech important. Doesn’t mean you can’t then run into trouble with something that might clearly constitute ‘bringing your employer into disrepute’ but that’s a much higher bar to prove, and in some regards Lineker not entirely out of kilter with many of the public on this issue. In fact as things have played out it seems the action of the management hierarchy done more to bring the BBC into disrepute for poor judgment and inconsistency. Not a great couple of days for the Beeb.
I agree. The basics are not complicated.
The BBC has policies on what its staff and contractors are able to do and this is without doubt written into their contracts. This happens everywhere and is not in any way unique to the BBC. Whether one agrees with this (and I’m not sure I do – what business is it of my employer what I do in my own time ?), this is the case and Gary Lineker will have voluntarily signed a contract with the BBC.
I’m fairly sure that the contract is confidential and that none of us know what it says (again this is normal). We do know, however, that the BBC does have guidelines about what its employees and contractors can do on social media.
Again, leaving aside the important question of whether the BBC should be engaging in policing thought crime, we are left with two questions:
Q1: Was Lineker in breach of either his contract or the guidelines ?
Q2: If so, will these be enforced ?
It really is that simple.
Leave public opinion and politicians outy of it. This is an employment issue between Lineker and his employer (I use that term as Lineker does appear to be a disguised employee of the BBC and is under investigation by HMRC for this).
The fact that the BBC doesn’t seem capable of focusing on the core principles at stake here just tells us how completely lost it it.
The fact that this has been blow up out of all proportion – is this really a lead news item ? – tells us how completely lost football is in its need to have to “take a lead” on any passing issue/bandwagon.
Lineker’s lawyers can doubtless claim that nothing he is doing is bringing the BBC in disrepute – since they’re already doing a bang-up job of doing that without any help from him.
Frankly, both sides deserve to lose here. And probably will.
Watching football is a bonding experience and brings people together. Whilst we can grumble about elements of the game, overpaid players etc, go anywhere in the world at any time and it’s a universal language. (And a game invented here). So we shouldn’t really be that surprised how important it is to any national broadcaster. Team loyalty and bonding never better shown than when one of the weekend heroes, Ian Wright, was first to say ‘I’m out and backing Gary’. Who wanted to be seen as as scab once Wrighty had called it? Sticking together maybe one of those attributes that football does teach our young.
As regards the Lineker BBC story – the basics are not complicated. BBC leaders grossly inconsistent and now thus embarrassed scrambling for a quick climb down ladder. No surprise and very predictable the moment they acted as they did. It will probably lead to a better clarification between the difference in being a political correspondent/presenter and light entertainment. British public is well able to differentiate.
Maybe the best thing though is firstly the row continues to highlight the importance of language in public announcements. Lineker’s analogy was poor, but Braverman’s exaggeration was dangerous – 100m aren’t about to arrive in Dover. Secondly the the row scotches the baloney that BBC is some cabal of left wingers. Tory Chair and donor, ex Tory Councillor as MD, Tory spin doctor as Non Exec, all now shown up for terrible inconsistency and lack of even-handedness.