News Forum - Gary Lineker’s colleagues come out in solidarity, refuse to do MOTD

[Thaiger]

Gary Lineker’s colleagues have downed tools and come out in solidarity after the BBC removed him as Match of the Day (MOTD) presenter following comments he made about the British government’s racist immigration policy. The 62 year old host of the BBC’s flagship show announced in a Twitter post on Tuesday to his 8.7 million …

The story Gary Lineker’s colleagues come out in solidarity, refuse to do MOTD as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Marble-eye]

Iiam Gallagher has just tweeted, "Gary are you sure you're not getting stick simply because you're a massive bell end? Just a thought Dumbo"

[BigHewer]

Probably didn’t need to say what he said, but sensitivity is just going too far.

Kudos to Shearer, Wright, Richards, Jenas etc for supporting him.

No punditry on MOTD tonight and it’s what the BBC deserves.

[Grumpish]

3 hours ago, Marble-eye said:

Iiam Gallagher has just tweeted, "Gary are you sure you're not getting stick simply because you're a massive bell end? Just a thought Dumbo"

My opinion of Liam Gallagher has just gone up several notches. As far as I am concerned anyone has a right to express their point of view - but no-one has the right to automatically have that point of view agreed with.

[JohninDublin]

47 minutes ago, Grumpish said:

My opinion of Liam Gallagher has just gone up several notches. As far as I am concerned anyone has a right to express their point of view - but no-one has the right to automatically have that point of view agreed with.

Where is Lineker announcing that he he wants such a right? 

[Chaimai]

1 hour ago, Grumpish said:

My opinion of Liam Gallagher has just gone up several notches. As far as I am concerned anyone has a right to express their point of view - but no-one has the right to automatically have that point of view agreed with.

 

 

I also agree with freedom of speech, but I disagree entirely when people in the spotlight take advantage of their position to make political comment - we have seen it noticeable with pop stars.. Many people look to these individuals as role models and are often influenced by what they say. 

Matt Le Tissier is worth watching in his interview with GBN news.  Not sure if you can pick it up from here:-

 

https://www.facebook.com/GBNewsOnline/

[JohninDublin]

I am watching this unfold on Sky News as it unfolds. MOTD is to go ahead but without BBC commentators and Pundits. Commentary will be taken from the PL World Feed. 

In addition Football Focus has been cancelled after it's regular host joined the boycott, as has Final Score BBC Radio 5 Live which presents most of the sport on BBC Radio, has had to pull "Fighting Talk", though there has so far been no explanation as to why. Another R5 presenter has said he will not do his usual job of presenting the Saturday afternoon sports show.

The PFA has said that it will back any footballer that refuses to do a post match interview with the BBC, will have their full support. 

For those of you who don't understand the asylum process in the UK, let me explain: 

Basically, with the exception of the Ukrainians and Hong Kong, there are only two ways to claim asylum before without entering the UK illegally. The first is to apply at the British Embassy of your own country. That is hazarddous, if you are somewhere like Afghanistan. In the countries where you are most likely to be put at risk, you are likely to be picked up by local police and suffer at best. some tough questioning for entering a foreign Embassy. If you can make it to say France from Iraq, and apply to the British Embassy in Paris, you are told to go back to Bagdhad and apply from there. 

The second other legal route, is to apply from a refugee camp. The estimated average time to process such a claim, is said to be at least 8 years, while some estimate it at 38 years in some camps.

Of those entering the UK illegally, 79% are later given asylum. So there can be no doubt that most claimants are genuine asylum seekers rather than economic migrants. However, reading between the lines, you might possibly come to the conclusion, that the real policy is to prevent these people reaching the UK so that the UK don't have to deal with the applications. I understand that the two main cohorts (about 80% of the 79% = 63%) are Afghans and Iraquis, and upon arrival they are able to show that when the UK was occupying their countries, they acted on behalf of the UK or US Military, and that is why they are now at risk. 

We have international obligations regarding the protection of refugees, but we can ignore those if we can deny them access to the applications process. 

The current Home Sec, Suella Braverman came up with the "Rwanda" Policy, where the "boat people" were to be put onto a plane and deported to Rwanda which was considered a safe country. This was met with protests from Ugandan refugees who'd been granted asylum in the UK, who said that if Rwanda was safe, they would have gone there instead.SB was warned that the policy was illegal but ignored the advice from her own civil servants. The day of the first flight, there were 100 names selected. One by one, Lawyers obtained injunctions for 95 of these. As the injunctions were served, SB stated that the flight would take off, even if there was only name left. 

Then the European Court of Human Rights intervened, reducing the number to 4. At this point. SB reversed herself and cancelled the flight. The UK courts later declared the policy to be legal, but the gov can't move pending the final decision by the ECHR.

Following on from this, SB started making noises about the UK leaving the ECHR. Until Ukraine, the only European country that wasn't in the ECHR, was Belarus who come close to being a bandit country in my opinion. They enabled Russia to invade Ukraine, and shortly after this, Russia too withdrew from the ECHR.

I think the current plan is really a "trojan horse", to gain support for the UK to leave the ECHR. In short, there are lenty of idiots out there who don't like the idea that some very undesirable foreigners have rights, and they are dumb enough to give up their's and everyone elses rights to put a stop to the undesirables. For me, Human Rights are like a safety net. Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it!

Just a bit of info about what caused all this problem in the first place: SB tweeted complaining about left wing lawyers and ACTIVIST CIVIL SERVANTS, opposing her previous attempts to dealing with the "boat people". The lawyers responded by saying that if she were not acting illegally to begin with, they would not become involved. However, the Civil Servants were outraged, as they are required to be apolitical. A storm was brewing over her comment.

Lineker came to her rescue, when he tweeted: "the "immeasurably cruel policy" had been directed at "the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s".

Immediately attention turns to Lineker, who is accused of trivialising the holocaust by several Tory Jewish MP's. But the main thrust of the attack is that he has broken BBC rules about impartiality.

Well let's look at how well enforced those rules on impartiality are enforced? In both the 2016 and 2019 elections, Sir Alan Sugar who fronts the UK version of "The Apprentice" in tweets, compared Jeremy Corbyn to Hitler. More recently, he has tweeted aganst the current Labour Leader. Sir Keir Starmer.

In the 2019 election. a very senior BBC employee stood for Parliament on behalf of the Tories. In one of his campaign speeches, he described the BBC as "Full of Pinkos". He lost his bid for election and went back to working for the BBC. In both cases, no sanctions were ever imposed or investigations launched.

As for trivialising the Holocaust, none of the current compainant MP's said a word, when Boris Johnson called the EU, a "Nazi Superstate"

To me, it is clear that the Tory actions are about silencing and controlling the BBC. I would offer by way of proof a story in the print media, that has somehow not picked up but has similarities with Lineker. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/10/david-attenborough-bbc-wild-isles-episode-rightwing-backlash-fears

David Attenborough is probably the world's greatest living naturalist and still works for the BBC at the age of 96. He has recently completed shooting a new 6 part series on the wild life of the UK, but the BBC will not be showing the last episode. In recent years Attenborough has become increasingly concerned about Cimate Change, and is of the firm opinion that all govs could and should do more about this problem. Episode 6 deals  with Climate change. Sources within the BBC are suggesting that the BBC was leaned on to drop that episode by the gov.

Back onto the issue of "Impartiality" and the BBC, some of you may be aware that the current chairman of the BBC was appointed by Boris Johnson in rather dubious circumstances. At the time, Bojo was looking for a loan of £800k, and it was arranged by Richard Sharp. Shortly after this Sharp is appointed head of the BBC. In joining he is required to fill out a questionairre as due diligence to see if he might have any conflicts of interest. He fails to declare his part in obtaining Bojo's loan. When the news breaks, he is called before the Commons Media Committee where he states, that he did not think this presented a cnflict of interest.

 

[JohninDublin]

1 hour ago, Chaimai said:

 people in the spotlight take advantage of their position to make political comment.

You mean like MP's? The real issue in this case as I see it, is that there have been several similar high-profile breaches of the BBC code and the only serious investigations that are undertaken are when Tory MP's complain. 

Rules that are enforced randomly, and particularly for political reasons,  bring the concept of that rule into disrepute and do noting for the reputation of the org fails to follow it's own rules.

[Grumpish]

1 hour ago, Chaimai said:

I also agree with freedom of speech, but I disagree entirely when people in the spotlight take advantage of their position to make political comment - we have seen it noticeable with pop stars.. Many people look to these individuals as role models and are often influenced by what they say. 

Matt Le Tissier is worth watching in his interview with GBN news.  Not sure if you can pick it up from here:-

https://www.facebook.com/GBNewsOnline/

You mean like, say, some ex-football player that has a regular spot on the BBC. 

[Grumpish]

3 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

Where is Lineker announcing that he he wants such a right? 

He is an (ex)  professional footballer - by definition he has his head so far up his own back passage that he doesn't understand the concept of people not agreeing with. 

[Chaimai]

1 hour ago, JohninDublin said:

You mean like MP's? The real issue in this case as I see it, is that there have been several similar high-profile breaches of the BBC code and the only serious investigations that are undertaken are when Tory MP's complain. 

Rules that are enforced randomly, and particularly for political reasons,  bring the concept of that rule into disrepute and do noting for the reputation of the org fails to follow it's own rules.

No, not MPs....they are allowed to talk about politics.

[JohninDublin]

43 minutes ago, Grumpish said:

He is an (ex)  professional footballer - by definition he has his head so far up his own back passage that he doesn't understand the concept of people not agreeing with. 

So can I confirm, contrary to what he didn't actually claim such a right?

Don't let your prejudices limit your opinion will you?

Lineker is very well known for his modesty, empathy and politeness. I wish I could attribute some of those qualities to you, but that would be delusional on my part.

[JohninDublin]

2 minutes ago, Chaimai said:

No, not MPs....they are allowed to talk about politics.

They are also allowed to talk rubbish which are most of Bravermans utterances. They rarely seem to have problems criticising footballers. Sauce for the goose?

That really is quite inconsistent. Look at the number of times Politicians surround thmselves with celebs at election time. The real problem is that the Tories in particular have a mentality that if you are not with them, then you are against them. Cleb supports them: Pukka Fellow. Celeb criticises them: Castrate them.

But one other thing for you to consider: If only Politicians and non-entities are allowed to discuss politics, whose going to to listen to the latter. If a Celeb comments, regardless of which side he takes, people pay attention and the debate has the oxygen of publicity. 

[Marble-eye]

Just now, JohninDublin said:

They are also allowed to talk rubbish which are most of Bravermans utterances. They rarely seem to have problems criticising footballers. Sauce for the goose?

That really is quite inconsistent. Look at the number of times Politicians surround thmselves with celebs at election time. The real problem is that the Tories in particular have a mentality that if you are not with them, then you are against them. Cleb supports them: Pukka Fellow. Celeb criticises them: Castrate them.

But one other thing for you to consider: If only Politicians and non-entities are allowed to discuss politics, whose going to to listen to the latter. If a Celeb comments, regardless of which side he takes, people pay attention and the debate has the oxygen of publicity. 

Turning another thread into 'I hate the Tories John' give it a rest.

 

[TheDirtyDurian]

Lineker has a platform due to his high profile position in the BBC. 

He should keep his mouth shut and remain impartial. 

Freedom of speech is fine but it doesn't mean freedom from consequences. 

All these ex pros showing solidarity should get a grip. People watch MOTD for the football, not for any "insightful" punditry. Personally, I couldn't care less if none of them returned and the BBC saved some of the license payers' cash on their inflated salaries. 

 

[TheDirtyDurian]

49 minutes ago, JohninDublin said:

They are also allowed to talk rubbish which are most of Bravermans utterances. They rarely seem to have problems criticising footballers. Sauce for the goose?

That really is quite inconsistent. Look at the number of times Politicians surround thmselves with celebs at election time. The real problem is that the Tories in particular have a mentality that if you are not with them, then you are against them. Cleb supports them: Pukka Fellow. Celeb criticises them: Castrate them.

But one other thing for you to consider: If only Politicians and non-entities are allowed to discuss politics, whose going to to listen to the latter. If a Celeb comments, regardless of which side he takes, people pay attention and the debate has the oxygen of publicity. 

Most celebs ain't funded through the license fee though, and that's the point. 

Okay, I know he doesn't exactly need the cash but the point is still valid. 

[JohninDublin]

53 minutes ago, Marble-eye said:

Turning another thread into 'I hate the Tories John' give it a rest.

I never used to hate the Tories till this bunch started to dismantle the land of my birth. So I am biased. Does that excuse you from attacking the truth of what I say, instead of attacking me?

[JohninDublin]

11 minutes ago, TheDirtyDurian said:

Lineker has a platform due to his high profile position in the BBC. 

He should keep his mouth shut and remain impartial. 

Freedom of speech is fine but it doesn't mean freedom from consequences. 

All these ex pros showing solidarity should get a grip. People watch MOTD for the football, not for any "insightful" punditry. Personally, I couldn't care less if none of them returned and the BBC saved some of the license payers' cash on their inflated salaries. 

So what was your view on impartiality when Alan Sugar attacked Corbyn, in two elections, and more recently,Starmer? Or how about the BBC senior employee who stood as a Tory candidate in the 2019 election, and said the BBC was full of Pinkos?  When he failed to get elected, he then returned to his job at the BBC. The problm as I see it, is that these matters are only ever investigated when the Tories complain. 

I've always believed that freedom of speech has consequences. More so, when there are apparent Fascist leanings in a gov.

[JohninDublin]

36 minutes ago, TheDirtyDurian said:

Most celebs ain't funded through the license fee though, and that's the point. 

Okay, I know he doesn't exactly need the cash but the point is still valid. 

During the meantime, we are bombarded by Poiliticians with their tweets, and they ARE funded by the public.

As for Lineker specifically, his other main job is to front Bein Sports on Euro nights. Bein is Qatari owned, and during the WC, he was oenly critical of the Qatari's policy on the Qataris human rights policy, gay rights and corruption involving FIFA. He still has his job with Bein, and I suspect that if he gets booted from the BBC. they would gladly employ him for PL games.

[TheDirtyDurian]

3 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

So what was your view on impartiality when Alan Sugar attacked Corbyn, in two elections, and more recently,Starmer? Or how about the BBC senior employee who stood as a Tory candidate in the 2019 election, and said the BBC was full of Pinkos?  When he failed to get elected, he then returned to his job at the BBC. The problm as I see it, is that these matters are only ever investigated when the Tories complain. 

I've always believed that freedom of speech has consequences. More so, when there are apparent Fascist leanings in a gov.

I'm not privy to the contract that Sugar has with the BBC so I can't comment on what impartiality clause he has. 

As for Lineker, if he doesn't like the constraints placed upon what he can say or not then he has the freedom to leave. We'll see over the coming days. I'd respect him a lot if he did just leave. 

[TheDirtyDurian]

3 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

During the meantime, we are bombarded by Poiliticians with their tweets, and they ARE funded by the public.

As for Lineker specifically, his other main job is to front Bein Sports on Euro nights. Bein is Qatari owned, and during the WC, he was oenly critical of the Qatari's policy on the Qataris human rights policy, gay rights and corruption involving FIFA. He still has his job with Bein, and I suspect that if he gets booted from the BBC. they would gladly employ him for PL games.

Your average politian doesn't have the same reach as Lineker so there's a big difference. 

I don't know how many followers Priti Patel or Lineker has on twitter, and I couldn't care less, but I'm guessing Lineker has far more. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

And nobody expects politicians to be impartial! It goes with the territory that they're not by the very nature of the game. We vote for the people saying the stuff we like. 

He was critical of Qatar during the WC, he's still quite happy to take the Qatari Riyal though working for BEIN! So he's not that bothered by them. Maybe he's changing the system from within and all that.... 

I'm sure Sky, BEIN or whoever would love to get him, and probably pay him double the 1.35m the BBC did. 

 

[Grumpish]

9 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

Does that excuse you from attacking the truth of what I say, instead of attacking me?

That is known as "begging the question". On one hand we have you apparently championing the cause of free speech, the next we have you resorting to defective logic and cheap insults for anyone that dares to challenge your (so far unsupported) version of the truth. 

[Pinetree]

The UK Sunday press has the subject as its main story with pages pf analysis.  Is this all that the media can talk about?  Is this the biggest story in World news?  Some dim wit footballer makes an ignorant comment in a twat and all is terrible in the World.  Do me a favour.  This is precisely why main stream media is broken and unreliable.  I don't care a toss for Linekar's views on anything, including football. Pathetic over reaction all around, his.  the equally broken BBC and the UK media. 

[Chaimai]

11 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

They are also allowed to talk rubbish which are most of Bravermans utterances. They rarely seem to have problems criticising footballers. Sauce for the goose?

That really is quite inconsistent. Look at the number of times Politicians surround thmselves with celebs at election time. The real problem is that the Tories in particular have a mentality that if you are not with them, then you are against them. Cleb supports them: Pukka Fellow. Celeb criticises them: Castrate them.

But one other thing for you to consider: If only Politicians and non-entities are allowed to discuss politics, whose going to to listen to the latter. If a Celeb comments, regardless of which side he takes, people pay attention and the debate has the oxygen of publicity. 

 

No one is not allowed to discuss politics. Freedom of speech is not up for debate.

 

Using a celebrity position and speaking under that banner is. Many celebs have firm political views - especially the left, and some abuse their celebrity position. 

 

If I had tweeted what Lineker said no one would have taken any notice. In his lofty, and overpaid, position he has responsibilities to the role - I don't know about the contract position but these corporations often have restrictive clauses.

If I was Lineker I would set up a Twitter account that was sub-titled 'the views in tweets on this account are entirely my and do not reflect the views of any other body that I may be involved with'.

 

He (ab)used his position and everyone knows it.

[Rookiescot]

20 hours ago, Marble-eye said:

Iiam Gallagher has just tweeted, "Gary are you sure you're not getting stick simply because you're a massive bell end? Just a thought Dumbo"

Oh the irony. Obviously Liam Gallagher does not do self-awareness.