Tories are still lying *******s

[Northernhibee]

https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/st...61387386953730

Just when you think things can't get stupider, Nadine Dorries manages to do just that.

[wookie70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/st...61387386953730

Just when you think things can't get stupider, Nadine Dorries manages to do just that.

That appears to be her role in the Tory Party.

Who votes for these people, even if you agree with the Party Policies they are utterly braindead. How can Dorries and 30p Lee etc get jobs at the top of Government. They appear to need help tying their shoe laces.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That appears to be her role in the Tory Party.

Who votes for these people, even if you agree with the Party Policies they are utterly braindead. How can Dorries and 30p Lee etc get jobs at the top of Government. They appear to need help tying their shoe laces.

I voted for em, coz they's just like me. They says it ow it is and **** those experts who doesn't confirm what my prejudices tell me.

[Stairway 2 7]

Daily express reporting that tories think suspension doesn't go far enough

Group of 36 Tory MPs and peers write to BBC chief demanding Gary Lineker investigation
EXCLUSIVE - Three dozen Conservative Parliamentarians have told BBC boss Tim Davie he must start a full and independent investigation into Gary Lineker's comments

[Iain G]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Daily express reporting that tories think suspension doesn't go far enough

Group of 36 Tory MPs and peers write to BBC chief demanding Gary Lineker investigation
EXCLUSIVE - Three dozen Conservative Parliamentarians have told BBC boss Tim Davie he must start a full and independent investigation into Gary Lineker's comments

🤣 He said a thing, it's easy to see what he said, it's on twitter, wtf are they going to investigate? And by independent they mean by Tory minded people. This is like listening to The Rangers when they are outraged over some perceived slight.

[Stairway 2 7]

This is very good. A woman replaces the word immigrant for jew in Bravermans speech, chilling

https://mobile.twitter.com/fascinato...70399939985409

[Ozyhibby]

http://gladstonediaries.blogspot.com...t-fascism.html

Well worth a read.

[He's here!]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...-a-moral-coup/

Needless to say he'll get short shrift on here but there's much to agree with I think.

[neil7908]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...-a-moral-coup/

Needless to say he'll get short shrift on here but there's much to agree with I think.

Can't read the article as it's behind a paywall but for the opening paragraph, surely the reverse is true?

Why are the free speech warriors now demanding Lineker is silenced and punished for his speech?

[Jack]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...-a-moral-coup/

Needless to say he'll get short shrift on here but there's much to agree with I think.

Yup. Not surprised you agree with much of it.

[Rumble de Thump]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can't read the article as it's behind a paywall but for the opening paragraph, surely the reverse is true?

Why are the free speech warriors now demanding Lineker is silenced and punished for his speech?

It's people who want to be allowed to use hateful, dangerous language and misinformation unchallenged and without consequence being unhappy that someone has publicly called out the Government for using such language and misinformation.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/arusbridger/stat...dxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...-a-moral-coup/

Needless to say he'll get short shrift on here but there's much to agree with I think.

He probably will get short shrift on here but that’s because the article is utter nonsense from start to finish with absolutely nothing in it that any decent, sensible person would agree with.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yup. Not surprised you agree with much of it.

Because it twists what Linekar said or because it conflated free speech with hate speech?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Needless to say he'll get short shrift on here but there's much to agree with I think.

Brendan O'Neill is never right about anything.

[Jack]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Because it twists what Linekar said or because it conflated free speech with hate speech?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Both.

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yup. Not surprised you agree with much of it.

Jack. On a tangent, I believe you were a civil servant. There was was discussion above about restrictions on social media for civil servants. Is there anything you can add to that?

[Scorrie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He probably will get short shrift on here but that’s because the article is utter nonsense from start to finish with absolutely nothing in it that any decent, sensible person would agree with.

Yep. In a nutshell

[Jack]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Jack. On a tangent, I believe you were a civil servant. There was was discussion above about restrictions on social media for civil servants. Is there anything you can add to that?

I believe there was guidance, in the same way there were rules/guidance for all [political] activities. In some sensitive positions it would have been made clear what was expected.

I retired 10 years ago when I don't think there was the same scrutiny. I honestly can't remember if it was because I wasn't politically active or had enough common sense that the information I had just wasn't for sharing. I positioned myself so that I wasn't affected.

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I believe there was guidance, in the same way there rules/guidance for all [political] activities. In some sensitive positions it would have been made clear what was expected.

I retired 10 years ago when I don't think there was the same scrutiny. I honestly can't remember if it was because I wasn't politically active or had enough common sense that the information I had just wasn't for sharing. I positioned myself so that I wasn't affected.

Thanks.

[He's here!]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can't read the article as it's behind a paywall but for the opening paragraph, surely the reverse is true?

Why are the free speech warriors now demanding Lineker is silenced and punished for his speech?

So the cancel-culture set believes in free speech now? What a turnaround. People who have spent the past decade turning a blind eye to the unpersoning of gender-critical feminists by the tyrants of Big Tech and the persecution of every poor soul who makes the mistake of holding up a picture of Muhammad have suddenly decided that they like liberty after all. En masse, with noisy tweets and Braveheart-style yelps about the right to dissent, they’ve converted to the cause of freedom of speech. Well, Gary Lineker’s freedom of speech, anyway.
The shamelessness of the British chattering classes never ceases to amaze me. In the past couple of hours, the kind of people who stared at their feet as JK Rowling was threatened with rape and death for saying ‘men aren’t women’ are running around like modern-day Miltons, shouting ‘Free Gary!’ on a loop. Folk who say ‘Well, free speech has consequences’ in a cavalier way whenever an ex-Muslim is blacklisted for ‘Islamophobia’ or a TERF is cancelled for ‘transphobia’ now decree that free speech should not have consequences. Well, Gary Lineker’s free speech should not have consequences. Of any variety. Ever.
This is the news that Lineker is ‘stepping back’ from presenting Match of the Day until he and his BBC bosses reach an agreement over his use of social media. It follows his Twitter outburst against the government’s measures to tackle illegal immigration. He compared the language used by certain ministers to ‘Germany in the 30s’. To some of us, this was a grotesque instance of historical relativism, of unwittingly minimising the uniquely barbaric crimes of the Nazi regime by comparing them to a pretty normal immigration-control bill proposed by a democratic nation in 2023. But to Very Online Tory-loathers, the time-rich middle classes who love nothing more than screaming ‘FASCIST’ at right-wingers and their own parents probably, it was a divine revelation. They’re fuming that St Gaz is now being martyred for his fearless truth-telling. The gushing over Gary has been one of the most embarrassing online phenomena of recent times. And that’s saying something. A cartoonist called Cold War Steve compared Lineker to the man who refused to salute in that famous 1936 photo from Nazi Germany. Yes, being briefly suspended from your cushy, multimillion-pound job as a footie presenter is just like the fate that awaited brave Germans who took a stand against actual Nazism. Across social media there’s been a secular beatification of Gary, the transformation of him into the pope of the pained liberal elites who’s valiantly sticking it to the fascist Tory government. Is anyone else a tad uncomfortable with the sight of mostly white virtue-signallers damning as fascistic a government and a Home Office overseen by people of Asian heritage? Just me?
Now these people are slamming the BBC for its unforgivable ‘cancellation’ of Mr Lineker. We need some perspective here. What has happened to Lineker is not cancel culture. The BBC is the public broadcaster. It has rules on impartiality. It is committed to being politically neutral – a task it often fails at, of course. Everyone who works for the BBC knows this. They know that, given their wages are funded by us, and given they work for a broadcaster that is meant to represent us, the people, in all our political and moral diversity, they can’t just go around saying ‘I hate the Tories’ and ‘Brexit is evil’. We know most of them think this, but we expect them not to say it. We know that while the Beeb is obsessed with gender and ethnic diversity it is terrible at political diversity and that you cannot swing a cat in one of its studios without hitting someone who went on one of those crazy Remainer marches in 2016. But we expect it to aspire, at least, to genuine public representation.
And when one of its presenters, especially a starry one, brazenly grates against the institution of impartiality, the BBC has a right to act, no? My view is that the likes of Lineker and Emily Maitlis, formerly of Newsnight, have forced the Beeb’s hand. These people pushed their luck, and they know it. From the staggering arrogance of Maitlis’s use of the privileged platform of Newsnight to spout her (entirely predictable) Guardianista views, to Lineker’s use of his BBC-burnished platforms to make pretty shocking political statements – such as likening the language used by an Asian-heritage female politician to the language used by violently racist Nazis – these two and others pushed too far. The BBC had no choice but to act. It knows that if it allows big names to wax lyrical on politics, in defiance of the rules, then it would have no way of stopping other Beeb people from using this licence payer-funded entity as a personal soapbox. It would lose control.
What’s really going on in the online Lineker love-in is not a fight for free speech, but a fight by the correct-thinking liberal elites to further turn the BBC into their political plaything, to complete its transformation into an outlet for their beliefs and their beliefs only. Their cringe-inducing cheerleading for Lineker, and for Maitlis before him, has nothing to do with the great old cause of defending the liberty to utter, and everything to do with colonising the Beeb so that it becomes little more than a mouthpiece of the right-on middle classes. This isn’t a fight for free speech – it’s a moral coup by noisy political influencers determined to turn everything, even the public broadcaster, into a platform for political preening.

[He's here!]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He probably will get short shrift on here but that’s because the article is utter nonsense from start to finish with absolutely nothing in it that any decent, sensible person would agree with.

In your opinion.

[McD]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In your opinion.

did he pen a similar piece when Alan sugar was making offensive comments? Or is it only comments that challenge tory policy that merit such actions?

it’s very interesting and quite telling that not one tory minister, party member or supporter has actually looked to engage in debate of the validity of the policy, but to deflect deflect deflect about how Lineker has challenged it. Funny that, it’s almost like they know it doesn’t stand up to any kind of humanitarian scrutiny

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So the cancel-culture set believes in free speech now? What a turnaround. People who have spent the past decade turning a blind eye to the unpersoning of gender-critical feminists by the tyrants of Big Tech and the persecution of every poor soul who makes the mistake of holding up a picture of Muhammad have suddenly decided that they like liberty after all. En masse, with noisy tweets and Braveheart-style yelps about the right to dissent, they’ve converted to the cause of freedom of speech. Well, Gary Lineker’s freedom of speech, anyway.
The shamelessness of the British chattering classes never ceases to amaze me. In the past couple of hours, the kind of people who stared at their feet as JK Rowling was threatened with rape and death for saying ‘men aren’t women’ are running around like modern-day Miltons, shouting ‘Free Gary!’ on a loop. Folk who say ‘Well, free speech has consequences’ in a cavalier way whenever an ex-Muslim is blacklisted for ‘Islamophobia’ or a TERF is cancelled for ‘transphobia’ now decree that free speech should not have consequences. Well, Gary Lineker’s free speech should not have consequences. Of any variety. Ever.
This is the news that Lineker is ‘stepping back’ from presenting Match of the Day until he and his BBC bosses reach an agreement over his use of social media. It follows his Twitter outburst against the government’s measures to tackle illegal immigration. He compared the language used by certain ministers to ‘Germany in the 30s’. To some of us, this was a grotesque instance of historical relativism, of unwittingly minimising the uniquely barbaric crimes of the Nazi regime by comparing them to a pretty normal immigration-control bill proposed by a democratic nation in 2023. But to Very Online Tory-loathers, the time-rich middle classes who love nothing more than screaming ‘FASCIST’ at right-wingers and their own parents probably, it was a divine revelation. They’re fuming that St Gaz is now being martyred for his fearless truth-telling.

The gushing over Gary has been one of the most embarrassing online phenomena of recent times. And that’s saying something. A cartoonist called Cold War Steve compared Lineker to the man who refused to salute in that famous 1936 photo from Nazi Germany. Yes, being briefly suspended from your cushy, multimillion-pound job as a footie presenter is just like the fate that awaited brave Germans who took a stand against actual Nazism. Across social media there’s been a secular beatification of Gary, the transformation of him into the pope of the pained liberal elites who’s valiantly sticking it to the fascist Tory government. Is anyone else a tad uncomfortable with the sight of mostly white virtue-signallers damning as fascistic a government and a Home Office overseen by people of Asian heritage? Just me?

Now these people are slamming the BBC for its unforgivable ‘cancellation’ of Mr Lineker. We need some perspective here. What has happened to Lineker is not cancel culture. The BBC is the public broadcaster. It has rules on impartiality. It is committed to being politically neutral – a task it often fails at, of course. Everyone who works for the BBC knows this. They know that, given their wages are funded by us, and given they work for a broadcaster that is meant to represent us, the people, in all our political and moral diversity, they can’t just go around saying ‘I hate the Tories’ and ‘Brexit is evil’. We know most of them think this, but we expect them not to say it. We know that while the Beeb is obsessed with gender and ethnic diversity it is terrible at political diversity and that you cannot swing a cat in one of its studios without hitting someone who went on one of those crazy Remainer marches in 2016. But we expect it to aspire, at least, to genuine public representation.
And when one of its presenters, especially a starry one, brazenly grates against the institution of impartiality, the BBC has a right to act, no? My view is that the likes of Lineker and Emily Maitlis, formerly of Newsnight, have forced the Beeb’s hand. These people pushed their luck, and they know it. From the staggering arrogance of Maitlis’s use of the privileged platform of Newsnight to spout her (entirely predictable) Guardianista views, to Lineker’s use of his BBC-burnished platforms to make pretty shocking political statements – such as likening the language used by an Asian-heritage female politician to the language used by violently racist Nazis – these two and others pushed too far. The BBC had no choice but to act. It knows that if it allows big names to wax lyrical on politics, in defiance of the rules, then it would have no way of stopping other Beeb people from using this licence payer-funded entity as a personal soapbox. It would lose control.
What’s really going on in the online Lineker love-in is not a fight for free speech, but a fight by the correct-thinking liberal elites to further turn the BBC into their political plaything, to complete its transformation into an outlet for their beliefs and their beliefs only. Their cringe-inducing cheerleading for Lineker, and for Maitlis before him, has nothing to do with the great old cause of defending the liberty to utter, and everything to do with colonising the Beeb so that it becomes little more than a mouthpiece of the right-on middle classes. This isn’t a fight for free speech – it’s a moral coup by noisy political influencers determined to turn everything, even the public broadcaster, into a platform for political preening.

Anyone who can read that odious piece of nonsense and find themselves nodding in agreement are themselves odious.

Lineker was right in what he said and attacking Lineker is akin to attacking free speech and defending horrible government rhetoric.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So the cancel-culture set believes in free speech now? What a turnaround. People who have spent the past decade turning a blind eye to the unpersoning of gender-critical feminists by the tyrants of Big Tech and the persecution of every poor soul who makes the mistake of holding up a picture of Muhammad have suddenly decided that they like liberty after all. En masse, with noisy tweets and Braveheart-style yelps about the right to dissent, they’ve converted to the cause of freedom of speech. Well, Gary Lineker’s freedom of speech, anyway.
The shamelessness of the British chattering classes never ceases to amaze me. In the past couple of hours, the kind of people who stared at their feet as JK Rowling was threatened with rape and death for saying ‘men aren’t women’ are running around like modern-day Miltons, shouting ‘Free Gary!’ on a loop. Folk who say ‘Well, free speech has consequences’ in a cavalier way whenever an ex-Muslim is blacklisted for ‘Islamophobia’ or a TERF is cancelled for ‘transphobia’ now decree that free speech should not have consequences. Well, Gary Lineker’s free speech should not have consequences. Of any variety. Ever.
This is the news that Lineker is ‘stepping back’ from presenting Match of the Day until he and his BBC bosses reach an agreement over his use of social media. It follows his Twitter outburst against the government’s measures to tackle illegal immigration. He compared the language used by certain ministers to ‘Germany in the 30s’. To some of us, this was a grotesque instance of historical relativism, of unwittingly minimising the uniquely barbaric crimes of the Nazi regime by comparing them to a pretty normal immigration-control bill proposed by a democratic nation in 2023. But to Very Online Tory-loathers, the time-rich middle classes who love nothing more than screaming ‘FASCIST’ at right-wingers and their own parents probably, it was a divine revelation. They’re fuming that St Gaz is now being martyred for his fearless truth-telling. The gushing over Gary has been one of the most embarrassing online phenomena of recent times. And that’s saying something. A cartoonist called Cold War Steve compared Lineker to the man who refused to salute in that famous 1936 photo from Nazi Germany. Yes, being briefly suspended from your cushy, multimillion-pound job as a footie presenter is just like the fate that awaited brave Germans who took a stand against actual Nazism. Across social media there’s been a secular beatification of Gary, the transformation of him into the pope of the pained liberal elites who’s valiantly sticking it to the fascist Tory government. Is anyone else a tad uncomfortable with the sight of mostly white virtue-signallers damning as fascistic a government and a Home Office overseen by people of Asian heritage? Just me?
Now these people are slamming the BBC for its unforgivable ‘cancellation’ of Mr Lineker. We need some perspective here. What has happened to Lineker is not cancel culture. The BBC is the public broadcaster. It has rules on impartiality. It is committed to being politically neutral – a task it often fails at, of course. Everyone who works for the BBC knows this. They know that, given their wages are funded by us, and given they work for a broadcaster that is meant to represent us, the people, in all our political and moral diversity, they can’t just go around saying ‘I hate the Tories’ and ‘Brexit is evil’. We know most of them think this, but we expect them not to say it. We know that while the Beeb is obsessed with gender and ethnic diversity it is terrible at political diversity and that you cannot swing a cat in one of its studios without hitting someone who went on one of those crazy Remainer marches in 2016. But we expect it to aspire, at least, to genuine public representation.
And when one of its presenters, especially a starry one, brazenly grates against the institution of impartiality, the BBC has a right to act, no? My view is that the likes of Lineker and Emily Maitlis, formerly of Newsnight, have forced the Beeb’s hand. These people pushed their luck, and they know it. From the staggering arrogance of Maitlis’s use of the privileged platform of Newsnight to spout her (entirely predictable) Guardianista views, to Lineker’s use of his BBC-burnished platforms to make pretty shocking political statements – such as likening the language used by an Asian-heritage female politician to the language used by violently racist Nazis – these two and others pushed too far. The BBC had no choice but to act. It knows that if it allows big names to wax lyrical on politics, in defiance of the rules, then it would have no way of stopping other Beeb people from using this licence payer-funded entity as a personal soapbox. It would lose control.
What’s really going on in the online Lineker love-in is not a fight for free speech, but a fight by the correct-thinking liberal elites to further turn the BBC into their political plaything, to complete its transformation into an outlet for their beliefs and their beliefs only. Their cringe-inducing cheerleading for Lineker, and for Maitlis before him, has nothing to do with the great old cause of defending the liberty to utter, and everything to do with colonising the Beeb so that it becomes little more than a mouthpiece of the right-on middle classes. This isn’t a fight for free speech – it’s a moral coup by noisy political influencers determined to turn everything, even the public broadcaster, into a platform for political preening.

I'm finding it hard to find any coherence in this. It's grouping "sets" of people together and adopting a rather screechy tone regarding people's political views.

Which parts of it exactly do you agree with?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

did he pen a similar piece when Alan sugar was making offensive comments? Or is it only comments that challenge tory policy that merit such actions?

it’s very interesting and quite telling that not one tory minister, party member or supporter has actually looked to engage in debate of the validity of the policy, but to deflect deflect deflect about how Lineker has challenged it. Funny that, it’s almost like they know it doesn’t stand up to any kind of humanitarian scrutiny

I think this is a real mess. And the BBC is caught in a vice over it. Some of it is of their own making. If his contract doesn't have any reference to a social media policy then the BBC doesn't have a leg to stand on. If it does then they have a problem. I suspect there is ambiguity with freelancers as opposed to employees.

I'm sure the BBC will be punished down the track for it, whatever they do. But it has set up a feeding frenzy, for example the David Attenborough story which has been refuted.

I don't particularly care for Brendan O'Neil. But I think he has a point in that it's not an issue about freedom of speech per se, but what Lineker said. Had he said 'we really need to stop the boats so the Government is right' the calls here would be for him to be fired.

As it happens I think the Bill is deplorable. And I am unsure about Gary Lineker's intervention. Initially I thought it was creating noise that obscured the legislative issue. As it has gone on the furore has turned the focus back on the Government. The long term impact? Who knows.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So the cancel-culture set believes in free speech now? What a turnaround. People who have spent the past decade turning a blind eye to the unpersoning of gender-critical feminists by the tyrants of Big Tech and the persecution of every poor soul who makes the mistake of holding up a picture of Muhammad have suddenly decided that they like liberty after all. En masse, with noisy tweets and Braveheart-style yelps about the right to dissent, they’ve converted to the cause of freedom of speech. Well, Gary Lineker’s freedom of speech, anyway.
The shamelessness of the British chattering classes never ceases to amaze me. In the past couple of hours, the kind of people who stared at their feet as JK Rowling was threatened with rape and death for saying ‘men aren’t women’ are running around like modern-day Miltons, shouting ‘Free Gary!’ on a loop. Folk who say ‘Well, free speech has consequences’ in a cavalier way whenever an ex-Muslim is blacklisted for ‘Islamophobia’ or a TERF is cancelled for ‘transphobia’ now decree that free speech should not have consequences. Well, Gary Lineker’s free speech should not have consequences. Of any variety. Ever.
This is the news that Lineker is ‘stepping back’ from presenting Match of the Day until he and his BBC bosses reach an agreement over his use of social media. It follows his Twitter outburst against the government’s measures to tackle illegal immigration. He compared the language used by certain ministers to ‘Germany in the 30s’. To some of us, this was a grotesque instance of historical relativism, of unwittingly minimising the uniquely barbaric crimes of the Nazi regime by comparing them to a pretty normal immigration-control bill proposed by a democratic nation in 2023. But to Very Online Tory-loathers, the time-rich middle classes who love nothing more than screaming ‘FASCIST’ at right-wingers and their own parents probably, it was a divine revelation. They’re fuming that St Gaz is now being martyred for his fearless truth-telling. The gushing over Gary has been one of the most embarrassing online phenomena of recent times. And that’s saying something. A cartoonist called Cold War Steve compared Lineker to the man who refused to salute in that famous 1936 photo from Nazi Germany. Yes, being briefly suspended from your cushy, multimillion-pound job as a footie presenter is just like the fate that awaited brave Germans who took a stand against actual Nazism. Across social media there’s been a secular beatification of Gary, the transformation of him into the pope of the pained liberal elites who’s valiantly sticking it to the fascist Tory government. Is anyone else a tad uncomfortable with the sight of mostly white virtue-signallers damning as fascistic a government and a Home Office overseen by people of Asian heritage? Just me?
Now these people are slamming the BBC for its unforgivable ‘cancellation’ of Mr Lineker. We need some perspective here. What has happened to Lineker is not cancel culture. The BBC is the public broadcaster. It has rules on impartiality. It is committed to being politically neutral – a task it often fails at, of course. Everyone who works for the BBC knows this. They know that, given their wages are funded by us, and given they work for a broadcaster that is meant to represent us, the people, in all our political and moral diversity, they can’t just go around saying ‘I hate the Tories’ and ‘Brexit is evil’. We know most of them think this, but we expect them not to say it. We know that while the Beeb is obsessed with gender and ethnic diversity it is terrible at political diversity and that you cannot swing a cat in one of its studios without hitting someone who went on one of those crazy Remainer marches in 2016. But we expect it to aspire, at least, to genuine public representation.
And when one of its presenters, especially a starry one, brazenly grates against the institution of impartiality, the BBC has a right to act, no? My view is that the likes of Lineker and Emily Maitlis, formerly of Newsnight, have forced the Beeb’s hand. These people pushed their luck, and they know it. From the staggering arrogance of Maitlis’s use of the privileged platform of Newsnight to spout her (entirely predictable) Guardianista views, to Lineker’s use of his BBC-burnished platforms to make pretty shocking political statements – such as likening the language used by an Asian-heritage female politician to the language used by violently racist Nazis – these two and others pushed too far. The BBC had no choice but to act. It knows that if it allows big names to wax lyrical on politics, in defiance of the rules, then it would have no way of stopping other Beeb people from using this licence payer-funded entity as a personal soapbox. It would lose control.
What’s really going on in the online Lineker love-in is not a fight for free speech, but a fight by the correct-thinking liberal elites to further turn the BBC into their political plaything, to complete its transformation into an outlet for their beliefs and their beliefs only. Their cringe-inducing cheerleading for Lineker, and for Maitlis before him, has nothing to do with the great old cause of defending the liberty to utter, and everything to do with colonising the Beeb so that it becomes little more than a mouthpiece of the right-on middle classes. This isn’t a fight for free speech – it’s a moral coup by noisy political influencers determined to turn everything, even the public broadcaster, into a platform for political preening.

The article is as bad as I thought it would be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think this is a real mess. And the BBC is caught in a vice over it. Some of it is of their own making. If his contract doesn't have any reference to a social media policy then the BBC doesn't have a leg to stand on. If it does then they have a problem. I suspect there is ambiguity with freelancers as opposed to employees.

I'm sure the BBC will be punished down the track for it, whatever they do. But it has set up a feeding frenzy, for example the David Attenborough story which has been refuted.

I don't particularly care for Brendan O'Neil. But I think he has a point in that it's not an issue about freedom of speech per se, but what Lineker said. Had he said 'we really need to stop the boats so the Government is right' the calls here would be for him to be fired.

As it happens I think the Bill is deplorable. And I am unsure about Gary Lineker's intervention. Initially I thought it was creating noise that obscured the legislative issue. As it has gone on the furore has turned the focus back on the Government. The long term impact? Who knows.

Linekar is going to get one all mighty payday out of the BBC over this. They don’t have a leg to stand on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm finding it hard to find any coherence in this. It's grouping "sets" of people together and adopting a rather screechy tone regarding people's political views.

Which parts of it exactly do you agree with?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

You know how they say you should never hit “send” on an e-mail when you’re angry?

It strikes me as something someone might submit whilst they’re angry (see my posting history in the immediate aftermath of derby defeats) before they’ve had a chance to calm down, think about what they’re trying to say and write it down in a coherent fashion.

It probably appeals most to the “permanently raging” demographic who relate to the sentiment.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You know how they say you should never hit “send” on an e-mail when you’re angry?

It strikes me as something someone might submit whilst they’re angry (see my posting history in the immediate aftermath of derby defeats) before they’ve had a chance to calm down, think about what they’re trying to say and write it down in a coherent fashion.

It probably appeals most to the “permanently raging” demographic who relate to the sentiment.

There is a section of society who are fully on board with what is happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk