The BBC Just Cancelled Itself

[Bucksiron]

Let’s be clear, there’s no question whatever that Lineker broke the BBC impartiality guidelines. The guidelines are very straightforward and clear, but for the avoidance of doubt there’s a simple way to prove it. Just turn what Lineker said around. The furore from the left would have been extreme had Lineker tweeted in support of Tory policy.

Let’s also be clear that this has nothing to do with free speech. Nobody I know wants to deny Lineker’s right to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants. No, this is all about BBC impartiality and there will be a lot of BBC staff very unhappy about how the Corporation has caved in to someone who earns more in a month than many of them will earn in a whole year, even accepting that BBC pay is pretty good.

Lineker’s built a nice £25m+ fortune on the back of his BBC connections, while his freelance status exempts him from paying over £5m in tax. Nice work if you can get it. The vast majority of BBC can’t and many of them will be seething. Yes, even those with left wing sympathies.

The main problem, however, is that the BBC’s capitulation has brought into stark relief the whole issue of the tax people have to pay to watch a television in this country; and the BBC has just stuck two fingers up to a very large proportion of the public who pay Lineker’s £1.35m per year.

This is a huge own goal by the BBC, which has just brought forward its own demise as a publicly funded body by many years.

[Siderite]

Nobody wants to deny Linekar free speech, but he can’t have free speech.

This really has exposed those who have genuine principles on such and those who just use it to stick it to the left and don’t really care about free speech. As was ever evident really, given that those whining about Linekar never whined about Alan Sugar, Andrew Neil, Michael Portillo and others expressing their impartial views. That is no problem with me, they are free to.

The agenda is clear though from you. Most don’t agree with Linekar being silenced, so the idea of a BBC civil war is maybe overplayed here.

Now for the personal attacks upon me for having a different view.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe, Heath, Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Bucksiron wrote:

The furore from the left would have been extreme had Lineker tweeted in support of Tory policy.

Alan Sugar made his political views quite clear on strikes in favour of Tory stances. Where was the same BBC response to that? Oh, yes, hypocrisy only matters when it’s from the left. Yawn.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Heath

[Deereyme66]

‘there will be a lot of BBC staff very unhappy about how the Corporation has caved in to someone who earns more in a month than many of them will earn in a whole year, even accepting that BBC pay is pretty good.’

There will, will there. What? Because you say so, and open many a claim with ‘let’s be absolutely clear about this…’?

Codswallop. You have no idea how many will be unhappy and ‘seething’ about it. Just the usual unsubstantiated guff Bucks. Money isn’t everything to everyone. You’re out of touch.

‘This is a huge own goal by the BBC, which has just brought forward its own demise as a publicly funded body by many years.’

Another grandiose claim. What’s it about really Bucks? Wishful thinking? Let’s see eh. See what happens.

[Heath]

There will be more BBC staff very unhappy about you and your Government twisting this into another argument to get rid of the licence fee. Yawn!!

Are you Jonathan Gullis or just another rabid mouth frothing Tory like him? Proud to share opinions with Dorries are you?

Uncanny how consistently wrong you are!!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Heath]

Never heard you making an impartiality protest about Mr Choo Choo Portilla who has written a Tory supporting POLITICAL column for the Tory supporting Daily Telegraph for years.

Hypocrite!!

2 users thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66, Siderite

[Siderite]

The BBC staff who walked out in solidarity seemed very cheesed off with Linekar didn’t they?

Bucks always comes on as some sort of grandiose know-it-all who wants to counterbalance us guttersnipes. Yet it is evident to me that he has an agenda and is not a ‘very sensible’ person out to press for reasoned argument. Anything which goes against his view is disingenuous, only his agenda is acceptable.

We all have opinions, which is fine, but it is impossible for me or anyone to be considered to have a valid position against Bucks when disagreeing. Bucks claimed Dom Cummings would be seen as a great doting dad for driving miles to see family, who he never saw, and went eyetest driving and any who disagreed were made out to be out of touch and bitter. The public consistently thought Cummings was in the wrong. When the silly Corbyn is a Czech spy story came out, Bucks proclaimed it a real worry and anyone who disagreed, pointing out why it was rubbish was apologising for Corbyn. It never led to anything, and some of us arguing against this story here and elsewhere dislike Corbyn.

This is not to say Bucks is always wrong, he isn’t. His views on problems with the left are true for some, but he is too broad brush and applies it to anyone critical of Tory policy. It’s that any view to the contrary is just dismissed, anyone who argues against him has to be disingenuous, and it’s always critics with an agenda.

Now, I know I am not perfect, have been wrong, made unfair comments on others, so I am not saying this to say I am better. However, I try not to be blind to it.

On this, I will say that it may be written into Linekar’s contract not to air views of his own. However, many other BBC staff have aired their own views and would have breached BBC confidentiality rules if Linekar has. It sticks in the craw that Linekar has been singled out, while others haven’t. I don’t think any should, because I don’t care about Linekar, Sugar, Portillo or whoever airing their own view on social media so long as it’s not criminal or put BBC in disrepute (e.g. they used racist language). I don’t even agree with what Linekar had said.

I am against undue silencing of others, from JK Rowling to the Dahl being edited unfairly. This applies for many on the right too. I didn’t think Jordan Peterson should have been suspended from Twitter when he was.

Yet, I am still sure I am saying this because I am a bitter lefty guttersnipe with hypocritical and disingenuous tendencies wanting to back up an ideological ally.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66, Heath

[Iron Age]

Let’s face it, the current government is so thin skinned that they can’t stand any criticism from anywhere, especially the BBC. So they have been protesting and griping for years.
It’s beginning to show, they’ve appointed leaders sympathetic to themselves.
Mild Putinism?

4 users thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe, Heath, Northumbiron, Deereyme66

[Bucksiron]

Whatalot of whataboutery, Siderite. Unlike you, however, I have no problem with it. The points about Andrew Neil, Michael Portillo and Alan Sugar are perfectly valid, even though Neil was a ferocious interviewer of Tory politicians as much as Labour, Sugar was a Labour peer — and donor — for many years and Portillo was actually paid to give his political opinion. Along with Diane Abbott and Alan Johnson it should be said.

Those things aside, however, all that the above comments actually do is support the point I was making, which is that Lineker has holed the BBC below the water line. Whatever happens now Tim Davie has effectively given carte blanche to any BBC person outside news and current affairs to say what they like. That would be fine if the BBC wasn’t funded by the taxpayer.

As for BBC staff being very unhappy, I know quite a few senior people at the BBC, including one journalist currently on a flagship news programme. It’s an open secret that many of the staff believe Lineker’s given special treatment even though he’s not even a BBC employee. It’s hardly surprising that those on a fraction of his income will feel aggrieved.

Regarding hypocrisy, the only real hypocrite in all of this is Lineker himself. His morals surprisingly failed to stop him attending a World Cup in stadia built on the back of thousands of dead labourers in a country with an appalling human rights record. I watched no more than an hour of the whole tournament, which I felt should never have been played. That doesn’t make me any better than anyone else but it does make me wonder how Lineker could work on the tournament when staying at home would have made a much stronger statement than the pathetic monologue at the start of the competition.

[Siderite]

Oh, so it does exist when it suits you. When I was trying to argue for it, it was nonsense and didn’t make any sense. Now it’s seemingly valid when it suits you. The difference in me from you is that I wasn’t using it to deflect. I didn’t say that what they had said means Linekar can get away with it. I was pointing out the BBC are being selective in their impartiality. Moreover, I stressed Linekar was wrong, debated against others in saying so, and didn’t just say “whatabout x” and move on as is standard whenever you just point to Labour.

I have not cast doubt on Neil’s ferocious interviewing style.. I wasn’t denying Sugar’s Labour links. However, he did make comments against the strikes supporting Tory arguments on twitter, so if that is fine it seems hypocritical for the BBC to call Linekar out. I also included Meaden, who is an ardent remainer, and airs such while being a freelance BBC worker on Dragon’s Den. I wonder why you left her out in your recent tirade to make out I am some hypocritical and disingenuous lefty guttersnipe? My point was never about political persuasion, as such, but it’s easier for you to pretend it is to make out I am some straw man lefty. Yawn.

“As for BBC staff being very unhappy, I know quite a few senior people at the BBC, including one journalist currently on a flagship news programme.”

Forgive me for a joke, but I didn’t see that Bucksism coming. :-)

Linekar did call Qatar out though. You could say it was weak, and I am not disagreeing, but calling out this government on twitter is hardly some strong action. I don’t see how this makes Linekar a hypocrite any more than those who moan about left wing intolerance for free speech (and not entirely unfounded either) coming up with every excuse in the book to not care about Gary’s free speech.

So, yes, please keep looking for more ‘hypocrisies’. I am aware I am not perfect, unlike mr perfect Bucksiron.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights

[Gurnelista]

BI Mr Perfect – maintaining his record of being wrong about everything as usual! The Peter Swann of non-football!

The government is criticised for using language that only 20 years ago would have been the language of the BNP, and BI’ waffles about taxpayers’ rights.

The public has every right to be concerned about this government’s nefarious back-door influence on the BBC, which is becoming commonplace…
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bbc-editors-asked-journalists-avoid-210844842.html

Unsurprisingly, many presenters have been critical of government policy for some time. Although there are rules about it, they are not clear given how social media has evolved, and consequently enforcement has been lax. BI’s list is selective, but here’s a longer one….
https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/gary-lineker-singled-long-list-201937853.html

But, far from damaging the BBC, the widespread support for Lineker’s comments shows how much the Tories are hated inside and outside the corporation. It also shows how BI’s fictitious ‘taxpayer’ (how 1980s! – millions don’t pay tax but still have a voice) expects the BBC not to bow to government pressure, and to respect the free expression of views by freelancers, particularly when they involve criticism of language used by the government being redolent of 1930s Germany.

I expect the Tories love a freelancer because they’re relatively easy to hire and fire. Now it seems they want to muzzle them too.

As for BBC staff being very unhappy – I’m not surprised. The low pay, the creeping managerialism, the increasing attempts by government to shut them up…. Why, I know quite a few senior people at the BBC, including one journalist currently on a flagship news programme. It’s an open secret that many of the staff are uncomfortable that Lineker was initially singled out for special treatment when he’s not even a BBC employee. So, it’s hardly surprising that those on a fraction of his income will feel satisfied with the outcome when he often says what they are thinking, but not permitted to say. (Thanks, BI)

And BI, just listen to yourself when you’re sounding off about “Lineker’s morals”. Egregious hypocrisy straight from the Daily Mail! In many respects the government you still slavishly support tries to behave just like the Qataris – they attempt to control the media, they have little respect workers’ rights, little respect for human rights, and they ignore as much as they can the kind of legislation designed to protect them. They hate anyone who opposes, and would delight in being able to shut them up Qatari style – hence the attempts to strong-arm the BBC into submission. OK, so at least they don’t use religion as a fig leaf to justify these abuses. But you really need to own these contradictions and own up.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe, Heath, TwoWrights

[Deereyme66]

‘Whatever happens now Tim Davie has effectively given carte blanche to any BBC person outside news and current affairs to say what they like.’

Agree with the majority of response to Bucks above, but I’d add that the quote above should be looked at. I’d say ‘so what?’, if it wasn’t the case it simply isn’t true that Davie has given carte blanche (guidelines review?) and it is unlikely to spark a flurry of similar social media output from BBC employees or freelancers (I’d suspect the opposite is true until the review has taken place and new guidelines issued).

Can’t not comment on yet another ‘people I know high up’ example of evidence – just a crass anecdote to bluff the casual viewer -regardless of it being true or not – something that we’ll never know or be able to disprove, and which discredits your argument Bucks.

[Siderite]

People being able to air their view in a democracy? Whatever next.

Of course the BBC has impartiality, and conduct in our social media can affect any job. If other BBC staff can’t make their opinion known, I can see where friction may lie, but Linekar isn’t the only one. And I don’t see how Portillo getting paid for airing them makes it any different. If the BBC is worried about impartiality that won’t make any difference, and frankly recent news of the actions made by the BBC top brass is more worrying for this than anything Linekar has said.

If this provokes an honest assessment of how BBC staff and freelancers are expected to work with their social media accounts, then great, but it has to be consistent. I would hope the BBC sides with an ability for free speech. Of course limitations would be something permissible, but it’s not one in favour of free speech, and it’s egregious for anyone to claim that the BBC would be acting in the principles of such when stopping anyone from airing their views.

[Siderite]

Lineker, the BBC, and all that. pic.twitter.com/ufBwpIELW0

— (((David Bennun))) (@DavidBennun) March 12, 2023

I can’t find much to argue with here. I am maybe more wary of the comparison, but I accept others think differently.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Iron-awe]

I repeat a point I made about this on the other forum. If the BBC had corrected Braverman in here interview when she misquoted the Lineker tweet and shown her and the Tory MP’s who were also crying foul the red card ( I know highly appropriate and possibly a red rag to the right wing ) none of this rubbish would have taken place. The Tories can’t keep crying about impartiality at the BBC when they stamp their feet and take their ball home when they can’t get their own way everytime. The ERG have responded by talking about defunding the BBC ( again ) because they can’t stand being told they are wrong and yes they are wrong big time on this matter.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Heath

[Northumbiron]

“That would be fine if the BBC wasn’t funded by the taxpayer.”

I think you’ll find it’s funded by the licence payers….

“The BBC is principally funded through the licence fee paid by UK households. In 2021/22 this generated £3.8bn. In addition, the BBC’s commercial operations, such as BBC Studios, provide supplementary income. In 2021/22, the BBC made £1.7bn through its commercial operations.”

Furthermore….

“The BBC is a statutory corporation, independent from direct government intervention, with its activities being overseen from April 2017 by the BBC Board and regulated by Ofcom.”

But as you have so many friends working there you’d have known that already.

[Deereyme66]

I’m sure there’s a Beatles song in here somewhere…

[Iron-awe]

Deereyme66 wrote:

I’m sure there’s a Beatles song in here somewhere…

I suspect the Governments answer to the many people struggling financially in this country is for them to work ” Eight Days A. Week ” wrong thread I know but can’t resist a Beatles challenge.

[Heath]

“But as you have so many friends working there you’d have known that already”.

He needs to find a friend at Channel 4 to tell him how they are funded. Wrong again!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Bucksiron]

Well, no surprises there, of course. As usual it’s all the fault of those nasty Tories; and of course ‘Germany in the 1930s’ doesn’t refer to the Nazis. After all, Hitler would have been very happy for those immigrants to die in the freezing Channel having given their life savings to leave a perfectly safe EU country in a dodgy dinghy.

Good old Gary, no doubt he’ll be beatified for putting his £1.35m freelance income on the line, even if that helps him prove to HMRC that he should be exempt from paying over £5m in tax. I mean, what else is someone worth over £25m, built entirely on his BBC career to do from his working-class mansion in one of London’s most exclusive neighbourhoods? Goodness, he’s even taken in immigrants and rescue dogs. The sacrifices this man makes.

Deerey, quite why someone who worked in London for so many years wouldn’t know people in the BBC is beyond me, especially given that person worked in PR. Of course, I’m forgetting your ignorant, hackneyed and stereotypical view of PR, which is about as close to reality as Gary Lineker’s life is to that of the ordinary working man.

All of that aside, what these comments have confirmed is why the BBC can’t possibly continue as a taxpayer-funded organisation; and, NI, I think you’ll find that being funded by the taxpayer is very different from being paid through taxes, although many would argue that the BBC licence is just another tax in everything but name.

[Siderite]

So when we people critiqued Swann it was because they were jealous of his wealth, but constant prattling about Linekar’s wages is not jealousy? I am not saying you are, but the evidence for what constitutes as jealousy seems to rely on being someone you disagree with when concerning a rich person. It all depends on which side you find yourself on as to whether it’s jealousy or a pampered prima donna.

I certainly think Linekar is paid too much, as so are so many stars. The argument seems to be when a left wing argument is made against wealth it’s politics of envy, but when a lefty has a lot of wealth attacks on it are valid. Such double standards are tiring, when anyone who disagrees with you is reminded how disingenuous they are for having the tenacity to criticise the Tories (some of it reasoned, some of it not) in harsh tones.

This pitiful story has done nothing but distract from a hideous policy which will see many who are deserving of asylum treated appallingly.

[Siderite]

I would also think your point might land better if your argument against Linekar being able to speak his mind on twitter wasn’t full of what sounds like personal resentment.

[Iron-awe]

Anonymous wrote:

“All of that aside, what these comments have confirmed is”……

you’re a bit of a knobhead!

Oh no here comes the usual ” personal abuse ” and ” usual suspects” response from youknowwho, ha ha it is always fun though and worth waiting for.

[Heath]

It’s been reported. Quite mild slang if you ask me. Hardly as bad as the time Bucks called me a walker.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Northumbiron]

” I think you’ll find that being funded by the taxpayer is very different from being paid through taxes, although many would argue that the BBC licence is just another tax in everything but name.”

No it isn’t. You have a choice on whether to buy a tv license or not. If you’re liable to taxation then you have to pay it!

Unless you’re a Tory of course.

[Heath]

I apologise for my lack of restraint. The only excuse I have is I just found the me, me, me a bit too much.

[Heath]

Though having said that, I’ve just remembered I also know someone who works at the BBC. He’s right, if you do any type of work in London, you’re bound to bump into someone who works at the BBC.

[Heath]

Particularly if you work in PVC.

[Deereyme66]

Not much consistency in this reporting malarkey. I’ve seen far worse recently.

Bucks, you’re missing the point about ‘people I used to work with’ as evidence of supporting your claims, but well done for using it as an opportunity to belittle the person you’re trying (badly) to reason with. Me bringing you up on it has nothing to do with my view of PR, which again, you use false accusations about, because you don’t know what my views on PR are. Starting to sound very much like a man shouting at clouds, old boy.

[Siderite]

I still wouldn’t call him that myself, though.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Author]

Posts