Gary Lineker big brass balls?

Ian Wright said today, on his podcast, that he won’t work for the BBC again if GL was sacked.

I don’t think he is brave enough to do what he said.

Why wait for Lineker? Can’t he make his own mind up? That’s why he is not brave enough.

Tories in a bind now, 30p Lee, bentonite, dories etc cheering the suspension

If BBC dont reinstate him they’ve destroyed their own reputation and make the tories look more fascist than ever

Tyrone Mings has just tweeted his support so this means all the people on twitter who don’t follow politics but do follow the actual footballers will start to see it … Does feel like the beeb have shot themselves in the d1ck

Now I am just waiting for Chris Kamara to work out what the hell is going on.

Just wheel Guy Mowbray in, I’m not really arsed who the presenter is – I watch it for the football.

I like GL, seems like a decent bloke. Personally, I don’t think he’s done anything wrong and don’t agree with the BBC rules. However, he knew the rules that the BBC set when he accepted the role, salary or freelance, and I don’t think he can be surprised that he’s left them with little option. I can’t believe the fuss: he’s just a bloke who once played football to a very high standard, he’s hardly Nietzsche.

I enjoy the craic between him, Wright and Shearer, but to think that MoTD is about them and there are no other options is nuts. I watch it for the football, not the magazine part which when I think about it has gone a bit Jeremy Clarkson/Top gear for me in the last season or two.

However, he knew the rules that the BBC set when he accepted the role

Hasn’t he been doing the job since before twitter existed?

Football’s finest hour?

binners
Full Member
I do find it ironic that in reacting to criticism of them acting like Germany in the 1930’s, they react like the Germans would have done in the 1930’s

very much this.

If they do cancel the show it will be interesting to see what they use the airtime for. My money would be on Tory party political broadcasts, on repeat.

.

she jumped to hearsay when his Mrs had said it was more than once.

However, he knew the rules that the BBC set when he accepted the role

Not to mention that those rules don’t seem to apply to people like Alan Sugar

I think we know what’s coming next…

I think there's one conspiracy nut who'd be only too pleased to get a call pic.twitter.com/HpDMiJ4MZX

— Chris Kimberley (@ChrisKimberley) March 10, 2023

jaa
Full Member
However, he knew the rules that the BBC set when he accepted the role

Hasn’t he been doing the job since before twitter existed?

Yes. Not sure what your point is? Are you implying that GL is so stupid he wouldn’t think that Twitter would be included as a platform the BBC would consider to be of significance?

I’ll say again, I don’t think he’s done a great deal wrong, but feel #prayforgary is just around the corner. The public handwringing is just nuts.

This is going to be massive.

You can **** with pretty much anything but football and whether you like it or not GL is the high priest.

Plus this is not just GL on a one off – I’ve followed him for ages on twitter, not because I’m a footy fan which I am not but because he has over the last few years become more and more outspoken against THIS govt. He is clearly a tory but not a fascist and this is where the lines are being drawn…everyday past tories are realising they are genuinely in a really bad situation – its just not acceptable for any normal right thinking individual to turn a blind eye to whats happening in the UK right now

I’ll say again, I don’t think he’s done a great deal wrong, but feel #prayforgary is just around the corner. The public handwringing is just nuts.

Yes, nothing wrong. In fact rather weak to be honest but he is earning money from BBC. Therefore, either he submit to BBC rules or go his own way.

chewkw
Free Member
Yes, nothing wrong. In fact rather weak to be honest but he is earning money from BBC. Therefore, either he submit to BBC rules or go his own way.

Agreed. That’s pretty much what I said a couple of posts up. He knew the rules, and now he’s earned a few million and feels brave enough to break them, he has to go. He’s hardly a hero, just a bloke with an opinion with reach.

The public handwringing is just nuts

The “public handwringing” is about abuse of political power, influence and censorship of some rather mild comments. No one thinks that Lineker has been a victim who needs counselling, the incident has just become a lighting rod that exposes the populists propaganda machine.

but he is earning money from BBC. Therefore, either he submit to BBC rules or go his own way.

do you think we should find ourselves in this position if he had posted to say he agreed with the government? If he had said the bill was great? If course we wouldn’t.

If they are applying the rules, they have to do so both ways and to everyone (Andrew Neil, Sugar etc)

Agreed. That’s pretty much what I said a couple of posts up. He knew the rules, and now he’s earned a few million and feels brave enough to break them, he has to go. He’s hardly a hero, just a bloke with an opinion with reach.

I think his earning makes him a sore thumb to BBC too and they are just waiting for the right moment. If he does not go then the BBC big boss will have to defend him and probably ended up being the scapegoat.

Completely spineless by the BBC.

Been meaning to cancel my TV license DD for yonks.

The “public handwringing” is about abusive political censorship of some rather mild comments. No one thinks that Lineker has been a victim who needs counselling, the incident has just become a lighting rod that exposes the populists propaganda machine.

I don’t know what to say to that to be honest. His employer set the rules, he broke them, they stand their ground.

I do find it pretty weak that the BBC have driven the story on their own platform, I also find it amazing that Braverman holds the position she does. I just don’t link the employment rules to the political agenda. Maybe I’m naive.

How have we suddenly got to the gov censoring the bbc, haven’t they done it themselves?

50p on Portillo.

His employer set the rules, he broke them, they stand their ground.

I mentioned this earlier, but when he severely criticised FIFA and Qatar, during the opening segment of the very first game of the world cup, there was nothing done. His comments were not impartial (and he was 100% right) so why wasn’t he pulled from the coverage then? The answer is because he wasn’t pissing off the Tories. Clearly there’s been pressure applied to get rid of him. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to join the dots about what influence and pressure is exerted politically at the very top of the BBC.

His employer set the rules, he broke them, they stand their ground.

Any proof of that? Why are right wing people not held to the same rules?

One out! All out! ✊

I pinched my nose and had a look at comments in the Daily Mail articles. The poor conflicted readers are struggling with both celebrating Lineker being cancelled and complaining about the woke BBC cancelling Attenborough.

They really don’t know who to be furious at.

chestrockwell
Full Member
Any proof of that? Why are right wing people not held to the same rules?

The external activities and public comments, for example on social media, of staff, presenters and others who contribute to our output can also affect perceptions of the BBC’s impartiality. Consequently, this section should be read in conjunction with Section 15: Conflicts of Interest.

BBC rules. I’m not a BBC or Tory apologist. Not even close.

I’m off to drink beer and eat pizza. I have no idea why I’m contributing to the thread to be honest, I’m really not that arsed.

My understanding is that his comments about FIFA and Quatar were cleared in advance by BBC as they would be broadcast live.
Fundamental difference is that his recent comments were on twitter and he was under no obligation to clear them in advance.
The comparison he drew was between the language used then and now.
Any right thinking person would agree with him.
BBC impartiality rules are directed at news/current affairs/political staff – not freelancers using their own twitter a/c to say what is undeniably true.

To those who are saying GL knows what he’s doing and should face the consequences I’d add that he clearly knows what he is doing and seems more than prepared to face the consequences.

His actions have been guided by principle and those actions have induced pretty much the entire world of football punditry to show they have principles too.

If his intention was to hold the government to account then he’s scored a hat-trick. His best performance since the Poland game at the 1986 World Cup in Mexico.

Overnight he has become the new meme for cancel culture. Whenever a RW pundit now harps on about cancel culture it will be met with the response; “you mean like Gary Lineker?”

The Twitter chatter is that Govt really pissed off with BBC statement – basically whilst Lineker was allowed to continue they could play the victim, but now the BBC have created a hero and as mentioned above an easy come back to the right wing free-speech, cancel culture whingers

If his intention was to hold the government to account then he’s scored a hat-trick. His best performance since the Poland game at the 1986 World Cup in Mexico.

I’m still not convinced this is the case. We, and most other people, are taking about Lineker and BBC, not the immorality of the proposed bill.

His employer set the rules, he broke them, they stand their ground

He isn’t employed by the BBC. He’s a freelancer. There are no clauses about social media use in his contract

It’s about the lack of consistency and applying rules selectively.

If you’re supportive of the Tories ( hello there Surallen) then you can say what the hell you like on social meedya, criticise them and the Tory plants now running the BBC, appointed by Boris, come for you

I think they’ve picked the wrong fight this time.

I loved the comment by some rent-a-gob Tory MP saying he owed his fame to the BBC. I’m guessing they never watched Mexico 86, Italia 90 or any other football in the 80s and 90’s, for that matter

****s!

I wonder if they could get the little 6year old girl from “Once upon a time in Iraq” to co host?
The little girl with shrapnel in her face from a roadside IED. Who opitomises why alot of people really do not want to live where they currently do , and would much rather live somewhere where there aren’t dead dogs packed with C4.

Bruce clarified that it was a one-off as described by his friends, when she said it happened multiple times.

Why was it necessary to say that, and to use the expression “one off” in any context whatsoever?

I’m going to tell the BBC that I won’t do MOTD either.

Why didn’t Lineker just arrange a bit of a loan for poor little Rishi?* All would be fine then.

Ok, the loan would have to be around a billion rather than “little people money” AKA thousands, but still.

I hope there’s a few renditions of Gary, Gary, Gary Lineker ringing out from the stands during the highlights during the next few MOTDs

However, he knew the rules that the BBC set when he accepted the role, salary or freelance,

It’s quite clear to anyone following the story that the rules *don’t* currently apply to him. He’s only a freelance, not an employee.

The BBC wants to change the terms of his contract, and is sacking him if he doesn’t (now) sign up to more restrictive conditions, that don’t seem to apply to the likes of Sugar, Clarkson, not to mention their own management.