Forum menu
Privileged old farkz
Like Gary 🙂
Yep imho the young do seem to be generally screwed over by the older generation, who seem unaware/uninterested of the changes to the ‘game’ over time.
It’s good thou that there are actually principled people telling it as it is.
The BBC can’t ever be impartial if it’s another revolving door with the Tory party or any other party.
I didnt bother watching MOTD as my own little protest.
The irony is if the BBC hadn't been the whipping boy for the tory scum and just left the tweet to blow away in the wind we all would have forgotten about it by now.
Plus, by waving around the big stick and being a bully, with the turn of events that's spiralled into headlines news, its brought the boat popping tory plans onto the front pages for an extended period of time and hopefully millions more people will now be aware of just how dispicable the ' send back the waves of illegals' plans are.
I skipped MOTD too! Power to the people 💪🤪
I can't find it now but I read a tweet saying BBC/MOTD have had complaints over last night's episode because it broke their accessibility guidelines; it was crap for blind people.
By 53% to 27%, Britons say the BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
75% of Labour voters think it was wrong, only 10% think it was right.
I don't think this is how Rishi Sunak was hoping things would pan out.
send back the waves of illegals
Can we not use this term. No one is illegal and certainly not those poor folk risking all to cross the Channel. Thet are refugees or asylum seekers and it is not illegal to be either.
There's a poisonous article by the Dorries woman on Spectator which is a big shopping list of Lineker mistakes on social media or just her being butt-hurt about people who have better moral standards than her crowd do. I'll not link as it was an utterly depressing look into a possibly disturbed mindset.
75% of Labour voters think it was wrong, only 10% think it was right.
That couldn't be more irrelevant to the Tories... they're not trying to get people who voted Labour in 2019 to swap their vote, they're trying to regain the support of those that voted Conservative before, especially those who did so for the first time... and motivate them to turn out and vote Tory again. Still, I agree it's not gone well for Sunak... only 51% of those polled that voted Conservative last time thought the BBC was right to suspend Lineker. That so many in football have stood with him isn't going to help the government at all. But I "think" Sunak has stayed away from the "invasion" and "influx" rhetoric himself though, so he could distance himself from this mess be shuffling out some of his ministers who have been happy to stoke up the hatred in the way Lineker has called them out for... well, he could if it wouldn't put his own position at risk with his more extreme MPs... and if he had anything else to fight elections on.
Can we not use this term.
They were quoting it, and calling it out as despicable, not supporting the use of it.
they’re not trying to get people who voted Labour in 2019 to swap their vote
The YouGov doesn't mention anything about "2019", where did you get that from?
It simply says that 75% of Labour voters are opposed to the suspension of Gary Lineker. Presumably that is 75% of people who currently claim to be Labour voters.
And it is indeed highly relevant to the Tories. They are currently predicted to face a devastating defeat next general election, winning support has to be their priority.
Presumably that is 75% of people who currently claim to be Labour voters.
No.
I turned over to talk TV and watched an interview with John Mair, former BBC producer on the Richard Tice program.(
(I dont watch these scum- more a case of keep your enemies closer)
Brilliant. John Mair much to the shock and horror of Richard Tice came out in favour of Gary Lineker and his right to speak. In fact he called talk tv, gb news etc hyenas, completely destroyed the argument that Gary Lineker is paid for by the tax payer by saying its not tax payers money, and the BBC is an independent broadcaster, not a state one and the financing is from a license fee, so nothing to do with taxpayers money.
The look f shock on Richards Tices face as this interview wasnt going how he thought it would go had me laughing. He tore them a new one.
Im not sure if they're going to be putting that one up on their YT channel.
No
Okay so when YouGov say Labour voters they mean Labour voters from a bygone time, not people who currently claim to be Labour voters.
That's obviously great news for Rishi Sunak. I'm sure that he is hugely relived by the YouGov findings.
After all it couldn’t be more irrelevant to him.
Thanks Kelvin.
not people who currently claim to be Labour voters
That's how polling works. "Labour voters" means people who voted Labour at the last general election. If they split based on "voting intention" instead, or on some other benchmark, such as results in local elections or something else, they say so explicitly.
I’m sure that he is hugely relived by the YouGov findings.
He won't be. Only 51% of Tory voters being in favour of the BBC action against Lineker is not good for him. The attempts at distancing him from this is underway... but won't work... because he can't sideline people in his government using the "invasion" and "influx" rhetoric that Lineker was challenging... and he's got little else to campaign with.
After all it couldn’t be more irrelevant to him.
I didn't say that. Just being clear that support for Lineker amongst those that voted Labour in 2019 is irrelevant to him... he really has no hope of wining anything other than a tiny number of those over, this year or next. He and his party are aiming at winning back people they have lost the support of since 2019, and more importantly motivate them to turn out to vote for them... rather than stay at home and not vote at all... especially in May's local elections.
dyna-ti
Full Member
I turned over to talk TV and watched an interview with John Mair, former BBC producer on the Richard Tice program.(
(I dont watch these scum- more a case of keep your enemies closer)Brilliant. John Mair much to the shock and horror of Richard Tice came out in favour of Gary Lineker and his right to speak. In fact he called talk tv, gb news etc hyenas, completely destroyed the argument that Gary Lineker is paid for by the tax payer by saying its not tax payers money, and the BBC is an independent broadcaster, not a state one and the financing is from a license fee, so nothing to do with taxpayers money.
The look f shock on Richards Tices face as this interview wasnt going how he thought it would go had me laughing. He tore them a new one.
The right wing proto-fascist populists are only in favour of free speech when it applies to them. They have a long track record of trying to suppress opposing views - see the sacking of Guito Harri for taking the knee.
Another heads up for that Adam Boulton piece up the page where he identifies the incestuous, revolving chair relationship between politicians and journalists to be at the root of the problem.
However this thing turns out, I think there will be a greater onus on all journalists and presenters not to be seen not to be censored. As I mentioned on another thread, BBC presenters seem to spend an awful lot of time taking instructions through their earpiece these days..
Oh... and has the phrase cancel culture been canceled?
Just watched about 5 mins of MOTD and the silence was deafening.
There was a a BBC executive on Kuenssberg today who hinted Lineker will be retired, maybe the BBC will use this as a chance to bring in a whole new generation of presenters.
Worked well for Question of Sport.
75% of Labour voters think it was wrong, only 10% think it was right.
To suspended him yes, what a massive own goal 😉. But wonder how many actually agree with his tweet 🤷♂️
Agreeing or disagreeing with his tweet is one thing.
Wether the language used by the government is reminiscent of Germany in the 1930's is another and as you point out, would require a different question to be posed.
Dehumanizing language coming from the lectern?...a bit like 1930's Germany.
Flags everywhere....a bit like 1930's Germany.
Daily Mail campaigning to see boat loads of child refugees sent back to Europe?....actually, that was 1930's Britain.
There was a a BBC executive on Kuenssberg today who hinted Lineker will be
retiredsacked,
Fixed that for him - as if any of the other presenters would view it as a shuffling of the pack rather than a sacking. The BBC needs to be careful that staff resentment over this issue doesn't spread outside sport, sacking Lineker could ignite a far more wide-ranging and long-lasting dispute.
Daily Mail campaigning to see boat loads of child refugees sent back to Europe?….actually, that was 1930’s Britain.
Indeed.
Apparently viewing figures were up by @500,000 for lasts nights MOTD. What would exp!anon that, novelty factor, not having to listen to the same old phrases, "it's a game of two halfs"😂😂??
Remove the chairman and replace with someone without political affiliations.
Sack the Director General and replace with someone competent.
Reinstate MOTD this evening, if it's too short notice then I'm sure Wrighty could set up pod-cast style from his living room and Gary and Alan could join in on Skype. (Just like they did during lockdown.)
Simples....
Viewing figures are based on watching the entire show. 20minutes of novelty value, versus an 80min show late at night, if I watch I'll dip out after the teams I'm interested in have been on.
Having said that I'm a fair weather footy fan.
Apparently viewing figures were up by @500,000 for lasts nights MOTD. What would exp!anon that,
Curiosity, nothing more or less. Although it'll be interesting to see them try to spin it as support for Lineker's sacking / bored of the commentary panel, etc.
Viewing figures were up mainly due to morbid curiosity, I'd guess. Having said that, some people do just want to watch the action, not the chat. Youtube generation and all that.
Fixed that for him
No need to fix it for me, it's what he said.
Having said that, some people do just want to watch the action, not the chat. Youtube generation and all that.
What they showed last night is on YouTube every week.
What they showed last night is on YouTube every week.
Yeah, I'd say there is a demand for both variants of highlight show. Just the goals/action, and an expanded version with the panel.
No need to fix it for me, it’s what he said.
Which is why I said 'fixed that for him'. 🙂
BBC Execs love their language of avoidance. Step back - suspended. Retired - sacked.
Apparently viewing figures were up by @500,000 for lasts nights MOTD. What would exp!anon that, novelty factor, not having to listen to the same old phrases, “it’s a game of two halfs”😂😂??
Compare it to next week's and get back us?
Ah ok!
@kelvin I meant on this forum it is lazy and perpetuates the trope for those of the populace who don't do nuance and critical thinking.
Let's consign it to the outer reaches like the terms [Post edited to remove derogatory terms - mods] that are derogatory.
popped up again
Hmmmm
I know the complaint is against the Beeb not the commentators; but to complain about access issues to a one off 20min token programme for one group who struggle for equality and fair treatment because the Beeb staff have withdrawn their labour in support of a colleague defending the rights of another group struggling for equality and fair treatment feels incredibly egocentric.
Can we not use this term. No one is illegal and certainly not those poor folk risking all to cross the Channel. Thet are refugees or asylum seekers and it is not illegal to be either.
No economic migrants in the mix at all? Like, none?
No economic migrants in the mix at all? Like, none?
If you're a real asshat, you could deem that even people fleeing war and persecution will end in a UK where they can get higher pay than they ever could at home and are therefore "econonic migrants". But you'd have to be a bit of a **** to do that - I'm sure no-one on this forum would be that small-minded.
It just reads like a definitive statement of fact. Just wondering if something had changed overnight. War in France for example?
War in France for example?
Ah, the old "no wars on our borders, so we have no responsibility for refugees" argument. It's a point of view. Lineker isn't the only one to disagree with it though. Travelling to the UK from countries hit means coming though a country that does border us. It's just geography.
War in France for example?
Have you invested in a giant pack of tired old bullshit?
Ah, the old “no wars on our borders, so we have no responsibility for refugees” argument. It’s a point of view. Lineker isn’t the only one to disagree with it though. Travelling to the UK from countries hit means coming though a country that does border us. It’s just geography.
Completely missed my point. Never mind.
Have you invested in a giant pack of tired old bullshit?
Why so cross? Does your mum know you’re on the computer?
The irony is strong with conservative mp writing about right to free speech.
Does your mum know you’re on the computer?
Pot - kettle
Completely missed my point. Never mind.
To be fair it can be difficult to establish what your point is. One minute you seem to be supporting the government's attitude towards migrants and those fleeing wars and persecution, then you appear to preform a summersault and announce that of course you believe that the government's attitude is unacceptable.
You justified this to me, after I pointed out your inconsistencies a couple of days, by informing me that you reserve the right to change your mind.
Which of course everyone has. But it does sometimes make it difficult to know wtf you are on about, if you don't mind me saying.
No economic migrants in the mix at all? Like, none?
If there are, then the proper way to deal with them is to receive them, judge their asylum claim fairly (and in a timely way), then remove them if it fails.
The clear majority of asylum claims from boat arrivees have historically be found in favour of the applicant. If we declare them all illegal and deny them the opportunity to lodge a claim and ship them off to Rwanda or wherever, doesn't exactly seem fair on the people who have a valid asylum claim.
The underlying problem is that we are not processing asylum claims in anything like a proper time, so the system is creaking and people are being held in hotels for well over a year. There appears to be little appetite from the government to do anything about this, as it creates a 'crisis' which they believe benefits them electorally.
Ernie. Fair cop. Point taken.
martinhutch. Agree with all of that.
I just think statements like “ALL are…” are dumb and don’t help their argument. A similar bollocks binary statement would be to say “they’re ALL Albanian young men/economic migrants. That would’ve been jumped all over. Seems nobody cares if you declare something that is bollocks as long as it’s the right kind of bollocks.