[Football] Gary Lineker to step back from presenting MOTD

[Titanic]

Gary Lineker to step back from presenting MOTD

Gary Lineker to step back from presenting Match of the Day until agreement reached on social media use - BBC statement

www.bbc.co.uk

Gary Lineker is to step back from presenting Match of the Day until an agreement is reached on his social media use - BBC statement.
It follows an impartiality row over comments he made criticising the government's new asylum policy.
In a tweet, the presenter had compared the language used by the government to set out its plan to "that used by Germany in the 30s".

 

[Thunder Bolt]

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The plot thickens.

But it still seems wrong to sensor him whilst allowing so many others on the BBC to post what they like.

I am involved with various scientific journals and research organizations. When the publication guidelines state "It is expected that studies will be blinded and randomized" this means that the journal won't check and won't care if it publishes research that isn't blinded and randomized. It is simply virtue signaling and arse-covering in case it publishes misleading research.

The BBC statement is equally a wooly wish list with no binding requirement. If it decides to censure Lineker this would a a prejudicial act especially, as you say, it turns a blind eye to the tweets and activities of others (of, presumably, a pro-tory persuasion).

I find it ironic that Johnson rewrote the ministerial, code so that, in effect, it is now impossible to breach the code if the person sincerely believes they haven't done so, and yet the Johnson gang (Mad Nad et al) are clamouring for Lineker's head for breaching an even less binding 'code'.

 

[rogersix]

But there are so few, that they keep voting the tories in?

i mean so few arguing logically that lineker should be denied free speech, and be treated differenlty to many other bbc employees, such as alan sugar

 

[HalfaSeatOn]

I think I largely agree with you on this.
Dyke made the clear distinction between news presenters and those covering wider, cultural output (which would include Lineker and Sugar), and that needs to be applied.
Then, in terms of news/politics/current affairs broadcasters, the notion of impartiality has to be qualified quite clearly. It's the loose application of the term that is generating much of the problem IMHO, because it's ultimately unachievable. What is sought from what I can understand is party political impartiality. Achieving that is not the easiest thing, especially when we have an electoral system which over-emphasises three parties in terms of parliamentary seats (Con, Lab, SNP) and under-emphasises others (Lib Dems, Greens and, potentially, Reform) -- but potentially the rules followed during a GE campaign could provide a starting-guide.
The Attenborough issue would complicate this. I'm more irritated by Attenborough than Lineker at present -- he's been with them for 7 decades and has been sidelined, presumably for having the temerity to indicate that we're living through the sixth mass extinction (around which the science is coalescing), although I'll await to see the content of the show to confirm what it is about the programme that prompted its special treatment. The BBC's explanation is highly unconvincing, and Attenborough's silence (so far) is speaking volumes.

To return to an earlier issue in which I upset you: what's going on in the public response to the BBC is populism in action. The people are mobilising against the establishment, and it's a beautiful thing. It'd be even better if they could extend that mobilisation so we can begin to address the deep mire we're in.

The people are mobilising against hate. Or at least I hope they are.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Final Score (Bargain Hunt): Blue Team 1 Red Team 1. BBC impartiality restored.

 

[Randy McNob]

The way this has snowballed is remarkable. Lineker is now unsackable otherwise everyone will down tools. Hopefully it will end with all the top brass at the Beeb resigning

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If you hate the Tories and want them out, you love ‘Gary’. Unfortunately, it’s a pseudo civil war. And that comes from a yellow.

Half a sentence on?

 

[timbha]

The people are mobilising against hate. Or at least I hope they are.

That maybe true and the numbers may be growing. But how many are truely bothered by what GL says or has said?

 

[Tom Bombadil]

The plot thickens.

But it still seems wrong to sensor him whilst allowing so many others on the BBC to post what they like.

I think that's actually the major problem here. There's no feeling that this rule has been applied consistently. Sadly the BBC has been reactive here due to the noise from a pretty authoriatarian home secretary and our very right wing press. It's all very rules for thee and not for me.

 

[Triggaaar]

i mean so few arguing logically that lineker should be denied free speech, and be treated differenlty to many other bbc employees, such as alan sugar

I don't think it matters whether you're a right wing johnny or whatever, but it's difficult to argue that Lineker should be denied his speech, while others are allowed it. Is anyone arguing that?

 

[Rogero]

I am on the fence but I doubt if Alan Sugar is employed by the BBC . The programme would probably be outsourced.

 

[Machiavelli]

That's the spirit !
If all else fails, dig up some dirt on him!

There's probably a job waiting for @Wokeworrier at The Daily Mail or GB News. We're very lucky to have him.

 

[inland seagull]

Seems to me the BBC were in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. At least we wont have to hear Shearer saying' it should have been in the back of the net' a dozen times or more

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

View attachment 158184

Jim, Jim. I think you will find that this is simply an honest mistake made by the BBC complaints department. This was not and never was the case. Had anyone made a genuine complaint about Andrew Neill at the time, this would of course have been taken further, as is the case today with the unfortunate Mr Lineker.

See how easy it is to spin a plausible lie? I'm sure that some of the more dishonest noddys on NSC read my paragraph above nodding in agreement

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That maybe true and the numbers may be growing. But how many are truely bothered by what GL says or has said?

I don't think that's the point at all. I'm not bothered by what Lineker says, but so what? The man made an innocuous comment on his private account and the new Dalek tory placemen in charge of the BBC have decided to exterminate. Even the most unlikely of observer appears to be prepared to say 'I'm not having this'. Good. Stand up against bullying. That probably covers it all, actually.

 

[Questions]

I’ve not heard anyone say that Starmer or his shadow cabinet are Communists or Soviets. No doubt someone has somewhere.

People like Clarkson when working for the BBC had plenty to say about Comrade Corbyn.

 

[Machiavelli]

May I ask what you see as different between the language used in 1930s Germany (besides it being in German) from the current rhetoric.

As far as I can tell they talk about immigrants in the same way and demonise them (talk of invasions). They plan camps before getting rid of them. They have attacked the judges and lawyers.

In additions to what they have said, they have also cracked down on protests.

Now we have the state broadcaster making political decisions.

So what is different about the language used between now and 1930s Germany? No one is saying that this will end in the same way. He merely pointed out the similarities in the language. At what point would it become okay in your mind for someone to point out these obvious similarities?

What are the differences as you see it?

I'll have a go at this, although I'm not an historian, nor an expert in 20C Germany.
There are a few differences:
-- the Nazis persecuted those already within Germany as the issue of immigration wasn't as hot a topic as it is now
-- the Nazis' language was more extreme (eg vermin and other sub-human terms) whereas Braverman is deploying the notion of illegal to migrants (incorrectly), although there have been occasions where she (and others) have veered closer through using terms such as swamped, invasion, etc. There is somewhat of an irony in Braverman (incorrectly) using the term illegal for asylum seekers and other migrants, given that she herself has stated (playing to her gallery) that she's "pushing at the boundaries of international law"; it's worth adding that the UNHRC have indicated that she contravenes international law. The Nazis loved a bit of nationalism, as does Putin, as does this lot.

 

[Acker79]

Just to add the people that matter Holocaust UK have said without mentioning names that it is wrong to reference what's been said to 1930s Germany. Maybe GL should apologise to them

Do they matter more than actual holocaust survivors such as Joan Salter MBE (the MBE was awarded for dedicating her life to educating people about the holocaust)?

Holocaust survivor says home secretary's words on migrants are similar to those of Nazi Germany

After Suella Braverman refused to apologise in a public meeting for "language I have used to demonstrate the scale of the problem" of small boats crossing the channel, Joan Salter spoke to Sky News about the confrontation.

news.sky.com

Ms Salter went further on Saturday, telling Sky News: "I feel very strongly that the Holocaust ended in the death camps but it started with words, with othering the Jewish people, blaming them for all the problems in Germany, and I am afraid that the actions and words of our home secretary is very, very similar.​

 

[HalfaSeatOn]

That maybe true and the numbers may be growing. But how many are truely bothered by what GL says or has said?

The more the merrier

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

So what’s the end game here, how is it moved on? Is it as simple as GL adding “views are my own and retweets are not an endorsement” to his Twitter account?’