What does Liniker have on the BBC?

Halifax71 said:
He's effectively a public servant, the code of conduct prohibits what he's doing.

He needs to be sacked for gross misconduct.

He can then continue to spout his political extremism as much as likes
Click to expand...
Jeez! Extremism, he’s hardly a member of the ‘Baader Meinoff Group’!
 
southshorepool said:
Go on I'll bite. Pinpoint the extremism in his latest tweet.
Click to expand...
‘This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s,

As far as I'm concerned comparing a legal policy to what happened back then is a wholly extremist opinion.

We obviously won't agree so I'll leave it there.
 
Halifax71 said:
‘This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s,

As far as I'm concerned comparing a legal policy to what happened back then is a wholly extremist opinion.

We obviously won't agree so I'll leave it there.
Click to expand...
It isn't dissimilar to the language used then though, but he's the extremist?
 
Halifax71 said:
‘This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s,

As far as I'm concerned comparing a legal policy to what happened back then is a wholly extremist opinion.

We obviously won't agree so I'll leave it there.
Click to expand...
It was legal then in Germany ☹️

Anyway, I agree he should be suspended.............














The day after Fiona "Tory" Bruce, who does present a current affairs programme in the most appallingly biased manner, is 👍
 
Halifax71 said:
‘This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s,

As far as I'm concerned comparing a legal policy to what happened back then is a wholly extremist opinion.

We obviously won't agree so I'll leave it there.
Click to expand...
But factually, he is correct if you compare the language. And it was also legal then as they were an elected government. So we'll leave it there.
 
If he just disagreed with the policy that wouldn’t be so bad but comparing with Hitlers Germany is very offensive and he should be forced by the BBC to retract or get kicked out. He only does the Saturday MOTD and the odd extra mid week and has a good break most summers and gets more than the American president 🤷🏽‍♂️
 
Breaking news. Lineker has been charged with breaking the impartiality rules.

He's totally and obviously biased in favour of Leicester City.
 
Threepeaksphil said:
If he just disagreed with the policy that wouldn’t be so bad but comparing with Hitlers Germany is very offensive and he should be forced by the BBC to retract or get kicked out. He only does the Saturday MOTD and the odd extra mid week and has a good break most summers and gets more than the American president 🤷🏽‍♂️
Click to expand...
Is it bollocks offensive.
 
Halifax71 said:
‘This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s,

As far as I'm concerned comparing a legal policy to what happened back then is a wholly extremist opinion.

We obviously won't agree so I'll leave it there.
Click to expand...
read the front page of the proposed bill it says that the Secretary of State (Braverman) can not guarantee the bill is legal under ECHR.
Now if you want to leave the above court and join the other two pariah states Russia and their puppet Belarus then yes its legal.
By the Winston Churchill and Britain were the first signatories in 1948 in the aftermath of WW2.
They know full well it’s not legal and they have no intention of leaving the ECHR either.
but when it is thrown out of the courts they can then blame judges, lefty lawyers, civil servants blah blah blah.
It’s a desperate attempt to turn the polls round because if they don’t the Tory party are heading for electoral oblivion.
 
Kurtan said:
read the front page of the proposed bill it says that the Secretary of State (Braverman) can not guarantee the bill is legal under ECHR.
Now if you want to leave the above court and join the other two pariah states Russia and their puppet Belarus then yes its legal.
By the Winston Churchill and Britain were the first signatories in 1948 in the aftermath of WW2.
They know full well it’s not legal and they have no intention of leaving the ECHR either.
but when it is thrown out of the courts they can then blame judges, lefty lawyers, civil servants blah blah blah.
It’s a desperate attempt to turn the polls round because if they don’t the Tory party are heading for electoral oblivion.
Click to expand...
Blaming civil servants in a letter to the Tory Party members is a clear breach of the Ministerial Code. Section 5.1.

Will there be any comeback?
 
Maybe his comparison to 1930's Germany was a bit over the top.
But I really don't care what Lineker says or what his political views are.
He's very good at his job and a top notch presenter. Whether he's worth his
salary is another discussion. But he's good at what he does.
 
Wizaard said:
Breaking news. Lineker has been charged with breaking the impartiality rules.

He's totally and obviously biased in favour of Leicester City.
Click to expand...
I wonder if Gary Neville will be facing similar charges from Sky? Or will he just simply be
charged with being a sulky, petulant child? 😆
 
Matesrates said:
Exactly
Click to expand...
And why shouldn't he be opinionated on his own time. It's not as though he turns up on MOTD and starts ranting about government policy. The UK government has been told by the UN that's its current and proposed policies are contrary to international laws that the UK has signed up to. Seems that Sunak, Patel, and Suliman, are using putin and belarussia as a benchmark for their policies which should be worrying for everyone.
 
If Lineker started discussing these matters on match of the day he'd be out of order. He didn't so he's fully entitled to say his piece, it's got bugger all to do with the BBC. This corrupt cabal of a govt with chief thicko Braverman will rinse this for all its worth. Its another culture war they like to whip up, meanwhile in the real world people are struggling to pay bills or get to see a doctor. It's for mugs all this bullshit, 80,000 coming across in boats isn't a huge invasion in a country of 68m its far less than other European countries take in. Braverman claimed in the Daily Mail of a billion potential immigrants coming to these shores, yes a ** billion. How did we deserve such cretins and more worryingly how do people lap it up? I'd say Lineker was accurate in his depiction of these shysters in charge, nasty nasty bunch.
 
Shandypants said:
If Lineker started discussing these matters on match of the day he'd be out of order. He didn't so he's fully entitled to say his piece, it's got bugger all to do with the BBC. This corrupt cabal of a govt with chief thicko Braverman will rinse this for all its worth. Its another culture war they like to whip up, meanwhile in the real world people are struggling to pay bills or get to see a doctor. It's for mugs all this bullshit, 80,000 coming across in boats isn't a huge invasion in a country of 68m its far less than other European countries take in. Braverman claimed in the Daily Mail of a billion potential immigrants coming to these shores, yes a ** billion. How did we deserve such cretins and more worryingly how do people lap it up? I'd say Lineker was accurate in his depiction of these shysters in charge, nasty nasty bunch.
Click to expand...
Spot on.

The government are now just looking for dog whistles and the usual suspects fall for it.
 
Malced said:
there's a straight-forward answer to that. he works for a publicly funded corporation, and their rules and protocols dictate that their employees have to be impartial and not political. I've no problem with him speaking his mind - but he should do it when he's left the BBC. If he doesn't like or agree with what his terms of employment are, he should resign. But he won't cos he wants his eye-watering salary.
It's the same for civil servants. There's a code of conduct of impartiality.
Click to expand...
The BBC trying to limit the free speech of employees and contractors is fundamentally contrary to employment law and the law in general. Same with the civil service if they are insisting on policing opinions. The UK still just at about has free speech, but it's seriously at risk.
 
F1 trying to do the same with drivers and their opinions. Hamilton gets similar stick to Lineker, but with added racism. Imagine a world where nobody can have their opinion or speak against those in power and their laws. Oh wait, we have Russia.
I don’t understand the hatred directed at Lineker for his opinion, he’s always been good at his job on MOTD and past that, I’m not sure how he affects anyone’s life he’s not in direct contact with.
Ironic that the RW moan about Woke Cancel Culture but are calling for him to be sacked.
 
Ormergod said:
I dont like the bloke either and he likes to stick his beak into everything but I think as a sports employee rather than news he has slightly more margin to tweet/write the way he does. Thats my understanding anyway.He will be cancelled one day and I look forward to the day.
Click to expand...
Cancelled by who though, if you mean the BBC he will walk straight into another job somewhere else. I can imagine some of the other pundits might follow him. Some would be a welcome disappearance but others not so.
And he doesn't stick his beak as you call it into everything, it's mainly on issues around common humanity. I wonder why people think that is a bad thing and then we end up talking about him rather than what he is talking about.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
The BBC trying to limit the free speech of employees and contractors is fundamentally contrary to employment law and the law in general. Same with the civil service if they are insisting on policing opinions. The UK still just at about has free speech, but it's seriously at risk.
Click to expand...
I'm no legal expert. Are you? Common sense dictates that it isn't illegal. Publicly funded corporations and organisations have long-standing impartiality clauses. I'd be very surprised if these were discovered to be illegal after all these decades of their usage. The civil service serves the Government and the population. The civil servants support whatever political party is in Government in an impartial way. They're not allowed to get political. The BBC is a publicly funded broadcaster. The funding comes from license payers of all political backgrounds. So the BBC stays impartial. It's not a difficult concept.

There's no such thing as free speech unless you're speaking to yourself in a darkened room. Apart from that there's always the audience and the context to consider. We all tailor our speech depending on who is present, unless we have a serious personality disorder. All we say has to be within the law - the actual law I mean; not laws you've invented to retrospectively forbid impartiality clauses for the convenience of this debate. If you are working for the MOD or the Armed Forces or the civil service you will be bound by the Official Secrets Act. This Act impinges on your free speech.
In the hierarchy of free-speech constraints, one down from the law is rules. Someone working for a company developing a product can't go about blabbing about the product when it's in development and when its commercially sensitive. They will have agreed to a confidentiality clause. But that would limit the free speech of an employee surely? Well - yes, but there's no such thing a pure free speech. When you take money off an employer there's rules. When you contract with an organisation and take their money, there's rules and obligations on both sides.
Lineker is the face of BBC Sport. He has a responsibility to the BBC to remain impartial and not bring the corporation into disrepute. He hasn't stayed impartial, and arguably he's brought the BBC into disrepute by using inflammatory comments referencing the Nazis. He's a grade A bell-end in my opinion, but my opinion matters not a jot. What's pertinent is whether the BBC will turn a blind eye, or enforce their impartiality rule. We will see.
 
Eternaloptimist said:
He was merely passing comment about Linekar once again
Click to expand...
Isn't that what Linekar did, just pass comment? The boat people are just an easy target for the Tories to deflect from the real issues affecting the UK at the moment. Like high inflation, Food banks, child povety and the strikes. They are also looking at getting rid of the Human Rights act. Yes cheer the Tories on With Bravermans 100, 000 coming to the uk, remember they might be coming for you next.
 
Mr Tangerine Man said:
Isn't that what Linekar did, just pass comment? The boat people are just an easy target for the Tories to deflect from the real issues affecting the UK at the moment. Like high inflation, Food banks, child povety and the strikes. They are also looking at getting rid of the Human Rights act. Yes cheer the Tories on With Bravermans 100, 000 coming to the uk, remember they might be coming for you next.
Click to expand...

Your position is to ignore the illegal people smuggling because we have high inflation? So can we tackle it when inflation comes down or will you wait until there’s no longer a single foodbank in the UK?
Not one of you anti-Government commentators have yet proposed anything other than a) an open door policy to the whole world, or b) to completely ignore the issue.
Thankfully most of the British aren’t so out of touch with reality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Malced said:
I'm no legal expert. Are you? Common sense dictates that it isn't illegal. Publicly funded corporations and organisations have long-standing impartiality clauses. I'd be very surprised if these were discovered to be illegal after all these decades of their usage. The civil service serves the Government and the population. The civil servants support whatever political party is in Government in an impartial way. They're not allowed to get political. The BBC is a publicly funded broadcaster. The funding comes from license payers of all political backgrounds. So the BBC stays impartial. It's not a difficult concept.

There's no such thing as free speech unless you're speaking to yourself in a darkened room. Apart from that there's always the audience and the context to consider. We all tailor our speech depending on who is present, unless we have a serious personality disorder. All we say has to be within the law - the actual law I mean; not laws you've invented to retrospectively forbid impartiality clauses for the convenience of this debate. If you are working for the MOD or the Armed Forces or the civil service you will be bound by the Official Secrets Act. This Act impinges on your free speech.
In the hierarchy of free-speech constraints, one down from the law is rules. Someone working for a company developing a product can't go about blabbing about the product when it's in development and when its commercially sensitive. They will have agreed to a confidentiality clause. But that would limit the free speech of an employee surely? Well - yes, but there's no such thing a pure free speech. When you take money off an employer there's rules. When you contract with an organisation and take their money, there's rules and obligations on both sides.
Lineker is the face of BBC Sport. He has a responsibility to the BBC to remain impartial and not bring the corporation into disrepute. He hasn't stayed impartial, and arguably he's brought the BBC into disrepute by using inflammatory comments referencing the Nazis. He's a grade A bell-end in my opinion, but my opinion matters not a jot. What's pertinent is whether the BBC will turn a blind eye, or enforce their impartiality rule. We will see.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of the Civil Service no longer asks you to sign the Official Secrets Act.

Transparency and all that.
 
Threepeaksphil said:
If he just disagreed with the policy that wouldn’t be so bad but comparing with Hitlers Germany is very offensive and he should be forced by the BBC to retract or get kicked out. He only does the Saturday MOTD and the odd extra mid week and has a good break most summers and gets more than the American president 🤷🏽‍♂️
Click to expand...
Whereas comparing the EU to Nazi Germany for 20 years has been absolutely fine.
 
Malced said:
Your position is to ignore the illegal people smuggling because we have high inflation? So can we tackle it when inflation comes down or will you wait until there’s no longer a single foodbank in the UK?
Not one of you anti-Government commentators have yet proposed anything other than a) an open door policy to the whole world, or b) to completely ignore the issue.
Thankfully most of the British aren’t so out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...
If you want to stop the illegal people smuggling then you ;-
1) open up routes to apply for asylum without presenting yourself in the UK
2) open up a reception centre for asylum seekers in Calais
3) resource the system so that claims can be swiftly processed
4) agree with EU that people crossoing the Channel by boat can be returned to the point of embarkation (like we did pre-Brexit)
5) work with EU partners to go aggresively after the people smuggling gangs

Thankfully most of the British people can see the scapegoating and whistle-blowing going on by the Tory government.
 
Malced said:
I'm no legal expert. Are you? Common sense dictates that it isn't illegal. Publicly funded corporations and organisations have long-standing impartiality clauses. I'd be very surprised if these were discovered to be illegal after all these decades of their usage. The civil service serves the Government and the population. The civil servants support whatever political party is in Government in an impartial way. They're not allowed to get political. The BBC is a publicly funded broadcaster. The funding comes from license payers of all political backgrounds. So the BBC stays impartial. It's not a difficult concept.

There's no such thing as free speech unless you're speaking to yourself in a darkened room. Apart from that there's always the audience and the context to consider. We all tailor our speech depending on who is present, unless we have a serious personality disorder. All we say has to be within the law - the actual law I mean; not laws you've invented to retrospectively forbid impartiality clauses for the convenience of this debate. If you are working for the MOD or the Armed Forces or the civil service you will be bound by the Official Secrets Act. This Act impinges on your free speech.
In the hierarchy of free-speech constraints, one down from the law is rules. Someone working for a company developing a product can't go about blabbing about the product when it's in development and when its commercially sensitive. They will have agreed to a confidentiality clause. But that would limit the free speech of an employee surely? Well - yes, but there's no such thing a pure free speech. When you take money off an employer there's rules. When you contract with an organisation and take their money, there's rules and obligations on both sides.
Lineker is the face of BBC Sport. He has a responsibility to the BBC to remain impartial and not bring the corporation into disrepute. He hasn't stayed impartial, and arguably he's brought the BBC into disrepute by using inflammatory comments referencing the Nazis. He's a grade A bell-end in my opinion, but my opinion matters not a jot. What's pertinent is whether the BBC will turn a blind eye, or enforce their impartiality rule. We will see.
Click to expand...
I'm not a legal expert but ive spent thirty years writing (with lawyers) contracts, NDA's, confidentiality agreements for both sides of the equation, and regularly write corproate policy dcouments for major institutions and occasionally governments, so i can speak from a modicum of understanding. Common sense dictates absolutely . . . . . nothing. Impartiality clauses determine actions not opinions, it is overreach when they try to determine opinions.

Firstly you're conflating free public expression of opinions and beliefs with the control of information, the two are very different. The official secrets act is (or should be) exclusively concerned with the control of classified and security related and other confidential information, the overreach of the authorities has frequently stepped into control of opinions through the act, Blair's administration was particularly egregious. NDA's and confidentiality agreements in the corporate world are simple controls on disseminating information either about products, methods, systems IP etc as a protection mechanism - the fact that confidentaility agreements and the like can step into controlling opinions should be a concern to us all.

Companies and the wealthy also have the stupid UK libel laws to control the free expression of opinions, which a fair few on this forum have been subjected to by the previous scum bag owners of the club.

The BBC has a charter to be impartial in its delivery of content, but it cant even do that in any practical terms. a programme like HIGNFY is constantly critical of government and expresses opinions that are usually not countered at the time. If impartiality, the way the BBC manages it, was to apply for every joke they do about the government they should do an equivalent one about the opposition.

The UK civil service has to be impartial in its delivery of government policy, and you are right about civil servants above clerical grade cannot be political or politically impartial in their personal lives as well (which again is an overreach (in my opinion)) but the codes of conduct also accepts that very senior civil servants may have to be both politically active and not impartial as part of their duties, its not cut and dry, and is probably implemented arbitrarily. The governments overreach here has been challenged but the UK government has the right to ignore many rules that ordinary companies and citizens are subject to. The military is likely going to have to change its policy on freedom of expression as the current blanket gagging policies are being challenged in the UK courts.

Recent changes in application of law determine that "great weight must be given to freedom of expression" and legislative opinion from 2014 states that generally speaking, employees must have the right to express themselves, providing it does not infringe on their employment and/or is outside the work context”. The BBC's guidelines on the expression of personal opinions would under those legal opinions be by any lay terms an overreach of the employment contract, but the laws are so badly written that overreach by organisations to limit free speech isnt clear cut. Just because the BBC is partially public funded (and i think that there is a good argument for it to not be) it should not mean that employees and contractors should sacrifice all of their personal rights, or be limited in how they express themselves, unless of course it is in soliciting or enciting violence or other criminality.

I cannot see how Lineker's tweets have bought the BBC into disrepute, its a personal opinion based on activities the current administration is implementing or trying to implement which are also being criticised by the UN and many other international rights organisations. The incompetence and outright bigotry being displayed by many in government (with due reference to immigration issues) does however bring the whole of the UK government in disrepute, and that can be demonstrated by the lack of credibility that the UK now has on the international stage.

The irony is that many new freedom of expression laws are coming in or being ammended to protect right leaning viewpoints from hate speech legislation - but of course they only want their opinions expressed.

To conflate the expression of opinions with serious personality disorder is truly ridiculous. You might not want to openly say your other half is fat for the sake of harmony in the homestead, but saying it in certain contexts doesn't mean you have a personality disorder, the honest dissemination of the opinion might be because of reasonably held health concerns for said other half. Holding racist and bigoted opinions towards groups of people might however be a sign of psychological disorder, stemming maybe from indoctrination or unsubstantiated fear, or it might just be a lack of education or intelligence.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
I'm not a legal expert but ive spent thirty years writing (with lawyers) contracts, NDA's, confidentiality agreements for both sides of the equation, and regularly write corproate policy dcouments for major institutions and occasionally governments, so i can speak from a modicum of understanding. Common sense dictates absolutely . . . . . nothing. Impartiality clauses determine actions not opinions, it is overreach when they try to determine opinions.

Firstly you're conflating free public expression of opinions and beliefs with the control of information, the two are very different. The official secrets act is (or should be) exclusively concerned with the control of classified and security related and other confidential information, the overreach of the authorities has frequently stepped into control of opinions through the act, Blair's administration was particularly egregious. NDA's and confidentiality agreements in the corporate world are simple controls on disseminating information either about products, methods, systems IP etc as a protection mechanism - the fact that confidentaility agreements and the like can step into controlling opinions should be a concern to us all.

Companies and the wealthy also have the stupid UK libel laws to control the free expression of opinions, which a fair few on this forum have been subjected to by the previous scum bag owners of the club.

The BBC has a charter to be impartial in its delivery of content, but it cant even do that in any practical terms. a programme like HIGNFY is constantly critical of government and expresses opinions that are usually not countered at the time. If impartiality, the way the BBC manages it, was to apply for every joke they do about the government they should do an equivalent one about the opposition.

The UK civil service has to be impartial in its delivery of government policy, and you are right about civil servants above clerical grade cannot be political or politically impartial in their personal lives as well (which again is an overreach (in my opinion)) but the codes of conduct also accepts that very senior civil servants may have to be both politically active and not impartial as part of their duties, its not cut and dry, and is probably implemented arbitrarily. The governments overreach here has been challenged but the UK government has the right to ignore many rules that ordinary companies and citizens are subject to. The military is likely going to have to change its policy on freedom of expression as the current blanket gagging policies are being challenged in the UK courts.

Recent changes in application of law determine that "great weight must be given to freedom of expression" and legislative opinion from 2014 states that generally speaking, employees must have the right to express themselves, providing it does not infringe on their employment and/or is outside the work context”. The BBC's guidelines on the expression of personal opinions would under those legal opinions be by any lay terms an overreach of the employment contract, but the laws are so badly written that overreach by organisations to limit free speech isnt clear cut. Just because the BBC is partially public funded (and i think that there is a good argument for it to not be) it should not mean that employees and contractors should sacrifice all of their personal rights, or be limited in how they express themselves, unless of course it is in soliciting or enciting violence or other criminality.

I cannot see how Lineker's tweets have bought the BBC into disrepute, its a personal opinion based on activities the current administration is implementing or trying to implement which are also being criticised by the UN and many other international rights organisations. The incompetence and outright bigotry being displayed by many in government (with due reference to immigration issues) does however bring the whole of the UK government in disrepute, and that can be demonstrated by the lack of credibility that the UK now has on the international stage.

The irony is that many new freedom of expression laws are coming in or being ammended to protect right leaning viewpoints from hate speech legislation - but of course they only want their opinions expressed.

To conflate the expression of opinions with serious personality disorder is truly ridiculous. You might not want to openly say your other half is fat for the sake of harmony in the homestead, but saying it in certain contexts doesn't mean you have a personality disorder, the honest dissemination of the opinion might be because of reasonably held health concerns for said other half. Holding racist and bigoted opinions towards groups of people might however be a sign of psychological disorder, stemming maybe from indoctrination or unsubstantiated fear, or it might just be a lack of education or intelligence.
Click to expand...
That's a very long way to confirm as expected that 1) you aren't a legal expert, and 2) the impartiality clauses have been lawful, and remain so. Therefore your earlier post doubting they were legal, as the basis of your argument, was nonsense and factually incorrect. You can try and spin it all you like, but the clauses are there and they're lawful - but you don't like it in the instance of Lineker so you and othrs suddenly have this new found crusade for freedom of speech. Laughable.
 
Malced said:
That's a very long way to confirm as expected that 1) you aren't a legal expert, and 2) the impartiality clauses have been lawful, and remain so. Therefore your earlier post doubting they were legal, as the basis of your argument, was nonsense and factually incorrect. You can try and spin it all you like, but the clauses are there and they're lawful - but you don't like it in the instance of Lineker so you and othrs suddenly have this new found crusade for freedom of speech. Laughable.
Click to expand...
The contractual clauses are questionable, under established freedom of expression laws based on the opinions of legal experts (not my opinion), and actual published legal opinion.

I dont like freedom of expression being restricted in any case, and with it comes responsibility. I think Tommy Robinson is a very stupid cnut and a truly disgusting individual but he is entitled to his stupid opinions, and he should be permitted to espouse those opinions in public forums which gives the opportunity to address his stupidity.
 
Malced said:
You're defending the indefensible by complaining that someone else has done the same, so that makes it alright. Really?
Click to expand...
Not at all comparable. It's been constant reference to unelected bureaucrats making huge decisions with no consultation for decades in order to gain political capital.

This is a one off comment from a private individual.
 
Wizaard said:
Not at all comparable. It's been constant reference to unelected bureaucrats making huge decisions with no consultation for decades in order to gain political capital.

This is a one off comment from a private individual.
Click to expand...
The face of BBC Sport is a private individual? Oh yeah - of course.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
The contractual clauses are questionable, under established freedom of expression laws based on the opinions of legal experts (not my opinion), and actual published legal opinion.

I dont like freedom of expression being restricted in any case, and with it comes responsibility. I think Tommy Robinson is a very stupid cnut and a truly disgusting individual but he is entitled to his stupid opinions, and he should be permitted to espouse those opinions in public forums which gives the opportunity to address his stupidity.
Click to expand...
We well are broadly in agreement. I don't want freedom speech stifled. My only issue with Lineker is that he's meant to be impartial whilst associated with the BBC. We can argue that until the cows come home, but I'm just stating the position the BBC and the Director General holds.
I don't personally like his reference to the Nazi era but it's his freedom to express himself as he likes within the law.
 
It’s unbelievable that nearly all the U.K. media and also us on this thread debating a sports presenters tweet and not about the actual proposed bill.
Of course this is exactly what the government want. They don’t want to discuss the legality of the bill or practicalities of it.
They want you to rage about Gary fecking Lineker .

It reminds me of this .


 
Malced said:
We well are broadly in agreement. I don't want freedom speech stifled. My only issue with Lineker is that he's meant to be impartial whilst associated with the BBC. We can argue that until the cows come home, but I'm just stating the position the BBC and the Director General holds.
I don't personally like his reference to the Nazi era but it's his freedom to express himself as he likes within the law.
Click to expand...
Is it right then that the Director General of the BBC is organising loans for the Prime Minister, having run a right wing think tank that wants to privatise the BBC?
 
Kurtan said:
It’s unbelievable that nearly all the U.K. media and also us on this thread debating a sports presenters tweet and not about the actual proposed bill.
Of course this is exactly what the government want. They don’t want to discuss the legality of the bill or practicalities of it.
They want you to rage about Gary fecking Lineker .

It reminds me of this .


Click to expand...
Perfect, just substitute card tricks, juggling and puppies to illegal immigrants, Lineker and benefit scroungers.
 
Wizaard said:
Is it right then that the Director General of the BBC is organising loans for the Prime Minister, having run a right wing think tank that wants to privatise the BBC?
Click to expand...

No. Not at all. And if you look further up the thread you’ll find I’ve already commented on that. 👍
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top