|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Mar 11, 2023 11:55:29 GMT
Conspiracy theories everywhere,is it not more simple?. He signs a contract in which there are clauses curtailing his activity on Social Media,it was not signed under duress and he subsequently breaches his contract,what may I ask are the employer meant to do ?. I know that if I had public criticised Barclays,I would have been compelled to resign or be sacked. He had a clear decision to make and made it but with it comes consequences bearing in mind he has form here . I have no issue with what he said but he did it knowingly ,cannot be surprised by the outcome surely . Ah but what if you criticised Barclays on a Sunday? a day which perhaps you weren't employed by the bank. This is being said about Lineker apparently he tweeted on a day he wasn't working for the BBC so that's all ok !! Totally agree with everything you said above. He's freelance. He isn't employed by the BBC.
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 11, 2023 12:08:54 GMT
Conspiracy theories everywhere,is it not more simple?. He signs a contract in which there are clauses curtailing his activity on Social Media,it was not signed under duress and he subsequently breaches his contract,what may I ask are the employer meant to do ?. I know that if I had public criticised Barclays,I would have been compelled to resign or be sacked. He had a clear decision to make and made it but with it comes consequences bearing in mind he has form here . I have no issue with what he said but he did it knowingly ,cannot be surprised by the outcome surely . Ah but what if you criticised Barclays on a Sunday? a day which perhaps you weren't employed by the bank. This is being said about Lineker apparently he tweeted on a day he wasn't working for the BBC so that's all ok !! Totally agree with everything you said above. Soul sold 24/7 ,7 days a week so no difference 😜
|
|
|
Post by alex8888 on Mar 11, 2023 12:12:08 GMT
Well done The Gas! I'm proud to be a supporter of a club with principles.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Mar 11, 2023 12:15:47 GMT
Conspiracy theories everywhere,is it not more simple?. He signs a contract in which there are clauses curtailing his activity on Social Media,it was not signed under duress and he subsequently breaches his contract,what may I ask are the employer meant to do ?. I know that if I had public criticised Barclays,I would have been compelled to resign or be sacked. He had a clear decision to make and made it but with it comes consequences bearing in mind he has form here . I have no issue with what he said but he did it knowingly ,cannot be surprised by the outcome surely . We don’t know the terms of his contract and I think this is far more nuanced than that. He hasn’t publicly criticised the BBC. They are his employer, not the Conservative party or any government. He isn’t a political journalist and there is a long tradition of those employed by the BBC in non-political roles speaking their minds on issues and even aligning themselves with political parties in a way that Lineker has not done. Basically, it appears to me that either the government don’t like what Lineker said and put pressure on the BBC to take action, or the BBC took action as they feared upsetting the government. Neither of those things should happen if you want an unbiased, publicly owned BBC. If the BBC sacked Lineker there would rightly be calls for hundreds of other presenters to be sacked for voicing their opinions publicly. It’s a farce. exactly. nice to see Football Focus, Fighting Talk cancelled, Jason Mohammed is not going to be presenting final score. Sugar for example can take a load of cash from the BBC for entertainment, but be in the House of Lords and say anything on twitter. This is about free speech, and I think anyone criticising the position of BRFC should think about this
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Mar 11, 2023 12:32:48 GMT
Thatcher wanted the UK to be more like the USA. That included no state owned broadcaster. That's been carried on by the Tories ever since. A while back Murdoch was schmoozing Cameron,presumably to curtail the BBC. It's barely disguised that they'd close or cut it back radically. Lineker is an excuse to persue that agenda. Similar to Jonathan Ross, who popped up on ITV with no comment. I have to say though that the BBC don't help themselves. I've just Googled Ross Parker and Kriss Donald - two murders never reported by the mainstream BBC. Conspiracy theories everywhere,is it not more simple?. He signs a contract in which there are clauses curtailing his activity on Social Media,it was not signed under duress and he subsequently breaches his contract,what may I ask are the employer meant to do ?. I know that if I had public criticised Barclays,I would have been compelled to resign or be sacked. He had a clear decision to make and made it but with it comes consequences bearing in mind he has form here . I have no issue with what he said but he did it knowingly ,cannot be surprised by the outcome surely . If he’d said that he totally backed the Tories immigration policy and that he agreed that asylum seekers should be treated in this way do you think they’d have taken him off air for being impartial ?
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Mar 11, 2023 13:10:44 GMT
Ah but what if you criticised Barclays on a Sunday? a day which perhaps you weren't employed by the bank. This is being said about Lineker apparently he tweeted on a day he wasn't working for the BBC so that's all ok !! Totally agree with everything you said above. He's freelance. He isn't employed by the BBC. Employed/freelance he is still paid by the BBC and contracted to remain impartial not just on the one day a week he does anything for them. If as you say he's not employed by them then surely the BBC have a right to get rid off at any time and he can't claim unfair dismissal.
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 11, 2023 13:14:09 GMT
Conspiracy theories everywhere,is it not more simple?. He signs a contract in which there are clauses curtailing his activity on Social Media,it was not signed under duress and he subsequently breaches his contract,what may I ask are the employer meant to do ?. I know that if I had public criticised Barclays,I would have been compelled to resign or be sacked. He had a clear decision to make and made it but with it comes consequences bearing in mind he has form here . I have no issue with what he said but he did it knowingly ,cannot be surprised by the outcome surely . If he’d said that he totally backed the Tories immigration policy and that he agreed that asylum seekers should be treated in this way do you think they’d have taken him off air for being impartial ? Well that's a hypothetical question,it also begs the question as to whether the BBC is truly independent or just the mouth piece of the government. If the former then my answer would yes,in the end all comes down to what his contractual obligations are and has he breached them. I have to try and retain some hope that the BBC is independent or might as well go in live in Russia😕
|
|
|
Post by Tilly's Thighs on Mar 11, 2023 13:22:19 GMT
He's freelance. He isn't employed by the BBC. Employed/freelance he is still paid by the BBC and contracted to remain impartial not just on the one day a week he does anything for them. If as you say he's not employed by them then surely the BBC have a right to get rid off at any time and he can't claim unfair dismissal. I believe that they have had discussions with him before about how he uses his social media account, and made it clear what it is expected of him. Would he have such a big social media presence if he had not been employed by the BBC for all these years, and was just another ex-footballer heading towards his Old Age Pension? I do agree with what he was saying, however, I think it would have sensible to get the point across without wording which some people would find emotive.
|
|
|
Post by Gashead73 on Mar 11, 2023 13:41:30 GMT
I never watch MOTD, I have no interest in it whatsoever but I always enjoy the EFL repeat on a Sunday morning.
PS I'm too pi$$Ed to watch it on Saturday night with beer goggles
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Mar 11, 2023 13:48:31 GMT
If he’d said that he totally backed the Tories immigration policy and that he agreed that asylum seekers should be treated in this way do you think they’d have taken him off air for being impartial ? Well that's a hypothetical question,it also begs the question as to whether the BBC is truly independent or just the mouth piece of the government. If the former then my answer would yes,in the end all comes down to what his contractual obligations are and has he breached them. I have to try and retain some hope that the BBC is independent or might as well go in live in Russia😕 13 years of Tory government + Brexit = authoritarian state I’m afraid. I’m with Lineker on this and everyone who has backed him. It’s the “ I am Spartacus “ scenario needed to stop the above from happening. It might not work but at least Lineker can say he did his bit. UTG
|
|
|
Post by nickchippenhamgas on Mar 11, 2023 17:43:08 GMT
[b I absolutely agree with you. The point I’m making is people have been offended by what was said. All this is forgotten because it’s Gary Lineker. I like the bloke myself and I wasn’t offended by what was said but that doesn’t mean others weren’t offended. People will back him and that’s fine as everyone has their own opinions but in circumstances like this I believe he should have been more cautious. He’s taken refugees into his own home so has as much of a right to comment as anyone. I just think the extra point he made was a tad unnecessary and may have brought back some painful memories for their family members. This is obviously my opinion and people will disagree which is kind of the point of a forum to spark RESPECTFUL debate. The only people offended are the right wing press and the head of the BBC who was appointed by the Tories and had a very dubious role in helping Johnson get a very big loan while he was in the process of being appointed to his new job, by Boris! with respect it’s nothing to do with the right wing or Tories, he works for the BBC which require their presenters to be impartial and not get involved in politics or political views, if he wants to espouse his views on twatter leave his £1.3million pound job anchoring a football show.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 11, 2023 18:05:23 GMT
The only people offended are the right wing press and the head of the BBC who was appointed by the Tories and had a very dubious role in helping Johnson get a very big loan while he was in the process of being appointed to his new job, by Boris! with respect it’s nothing to do with the right wing or Tories, he works for the BBC which require their presenters to be impartial and not get involved in politics or political views, if he wants to espouse his views on twatter leave his £1.3million pound job anchoring a football show. That's the real issue, the BBC have asked him to refrain from making political comments and he's apparently refused, I don't understand what his fellow presenters, & Rovers etc, are hoping to achieve, as surely the BBC can't back down now and just let him continue making political statements?
|
|
|
Post by stapletongas on Mar 11, 2023 18:42:26 GMT
with respect it’s nothing to do with the right wing or Tories, he works for the BBC which require their presenters to be impartial and not get involved in politics or political views, if he wants to espouse his views on twatter leave his £1.3million pound job anchoring a football show. That's the real issue, the BBC have asked him to refrain from making political comments and he's apparently refused, I don't understand what his fellow presenters, & Rovers etc, are hoping to achieve, as surely the BBC can't back down now and just let him continue making political statements? Ah so Gary Lineker is required to tow the line but the Chairman of the BBC doesn't? I won't make any further comment because arguing with you is an utter waste of my time...but you might want to research that one. So good luck and I hope you're enjoying a nice day in a free, civilised and democratic society, a luxury that not all human beings enjoy, that we sometimes take for granted and which this Tory government are undermining.
|
|
|
Post by gasfred on Mar 11, 2023 18:56:26 GMT
He is one of a long list of champagne socialists none of the issues of open border immigration effects them. School places - private school. Health care private policy. Community - living in exlusive neighbourhood. NO Linekar is a p***k
|
|
|
Post by A Source (aka Angry Badger) on Mar 11, 2023 19:02:35 GMT
20 mins tonight with no commentary. A bit of Yakety Sax played over it I reckon. (That's not me making light of it, just think it might make it more chirpy)
|
|
|
Post by dudelebowski on Mar 11, 2023 19:10:36 GMT
He is one of a long list of champagne socialists none of the issues of open border immigration effects them. School places - private school. Health care private policy. Community - living in exlusive neighbourhood. NO Linekar is a p***k Exclusive neighbourhood or not, the guy did take refugee’s into his home. So it’s far from all talk on his part.
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Mar 11, 2023 19:13:02 GMT
I still have an interest in the Premier League so for me it’s almost a ritual and something that makes my Saturday nights. Not just the in depth highlights and analysis but the punditry as well. The problem is BBC are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Not everyone will agree with the outcome as it is but again not everyone would agree had this outcome not arrived. Freedom of speech is a thing of the past in this country. I know In my job my contract specifically says to avoid political debate and this is a prime example of why this is in many ‘ordinary peoples contracts now. Going back out Joey mentioned the holocaust in his summary after a match. Now an idol in Gary Lineker does the same and there’s and outcry of support for him. Was there this support when Joey mentioned it? Think we all know the answer there. Yes we do
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Mar 11, 2023 19:17:13 GMT
I don't think this is a case of Lineker being given the whip for stepping out of line on one occasion. I don't think what he said was especially bad, even if the nuances of what he said may have interpretable in a strong way. The problem for Gary is that this is the straw which has broken the camels back after being very active on social media for a while now with views that many disagree with.
The problem we have in our society today is that we have a mindset where people cannot say what they think or feel without being castigated and labelled for it. I hate how we are unable to have a nuanced debate these days without starting to chuck slurs at one another, especially given some slurs carry extremely unpleasant connotations. It makes it very difficult for those who are genuinely middle ground to not be spun out by everyone. You're either one of thus, or one of them.
This mindset needs to die a death as it is an enemy of reason, finding commonality and a balanced and healthy way forward.
Lineker is a victim of this cancel culture that we have, however he is probably on the other end of the spectrum from those who are usually being cancelled.
I truly believe in free speech, however as it seems acceptable to cancel everyone these days I really don't give a sh** about Lineker being cancelled.
For me, this is a case of either we accept that people have a variety of different beliefs and start to speak to one another with respect or we decide to have a culture where we're afraid of discussing complex issues and suppress anything remotely controversial.
But either way we can't have our cake and eat it.
Can't remember if I think it was Stuart said it on this thread or another one but I truly agree that I think the BBC do a good job of balancing both points of view which is a really difficult job to do. Part of the challenges of being a national broadcaster is that you need to either seek out impartiality or else you are at risk of being seen by all sides to be prioritising one side over the other. The BBC is at a juncture where they need to choose if they want to police impartiality across the board more strongly or if they want to take their hands off but also have to be seen to be impartial in that too. Whatever it does, it needs to do its best to be consistent.
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Mar 11, 2023 19:18:07 GMT
Thatcher wanted the UK to be more like the USA. That included no state owned broadcaster. That's been carried on by the Tories ever since. A while back Murdoch was schmoozing Cameron,presumably to curtail the BBC. It's barely disguised that they'd close or cut it back radically. Lineker is an excuse to persue that agenda. Similar to Jonathan Ross, who popped up on ITV with no comment. I have to say though that the BBC don't help themselves. I've just Googled Ross Parker and Kriss Donald - two murders never reported by the mainstream BBC. Conspiracy theories everywhere,is it not more simple?. He signs a contract in which there are clauses curtailing his activity on Social Media,it was not signed under duress and he subsequently breaches his contract,what may I ask are the employer meant to do ?. I know that if I had public criticised Barclays,I would have been compelled to resign or be sacked. He had a clear decision to make and made it but with it comes consequences bearing in mind he has form here . I have no issue with what he said but he did it knowingly ,cannot be surprised by the outcome surely . Using your own analogy, he did not criticise the BBC. He criticised the government. This is censorship, pure and simple
|
|
|
Post by gasfred on Mar 11, 2023 19:18:41 GMT
He took them in VERY temporarily Lily Allen took some in and needed a court order to get them out. Loved it
|
|