[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Zizu

Can’t see Wrighty and Shearer being too pleased with Lineker when they both lose their lucrative income


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

No you are right

[bots]

Originally Posted by Cherie

No you are right

ian wright and Shearer are on multiple sports channels, they are not reliant on the bbc for income, neither is lineker

[bots]

what it comes down to is simple. When BBC employees express their own political opinions, the licence payer says that person does not represent me, so why should i pay a licence fee. We have no choice but to pay, so lineker should have no choice but to shut up.

Why should lineker have the choice to express whatever political view he likes while being employed by the bbc, but i do not have the choice to not pay the tv licence

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

ian wright and Shearer are on multiple sports channels, they are not reliant on the bbc for income, neither is lineker

I know but its a jammy little number for all of them

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

the 3 pundits collectively will save a small fortune.

The BBC had little option but to boot him after he said he would say what he liked and carry on presenting the show

The BBC has no right to control what their workers can and can't say, that's no different to Russia Today if they carry on trying to censor what one of their employees can and can't say about a Government policy.

The BBC should just apologize and admit that they've got it wrong, but they'll more than likely be stubborn and try to double down.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

he has been warned before that he had stepped over the line. You seem to be missing the point, an employer can put any restrictions they wish on those employees behaviour, so it isn't about free speech at all

But the BBC has allowed other workers on the Channel get political in the past.

It was even discussed on Sky Sports News yesterday about the BBC picking and choosing who can be political out of their Presenters.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

what it comes down to is simple. When BBC employees express their own political opinions, the licence payer says that person does not represent me, so why should i pay a licence fee. We have no choice but to pay, so lineker should have no choice but to shut up.

Why should lineker have the choice to express whatever political view he likes while being employed by the bbc, but i do not have the choice to not pay the tv licence

I never get this argument.

Just because you pay a TV Licence, doesn't mean that people can't express differing viewpoints who work for the Channel.

I mean if we go with this argument then nobody would be allowed to work at the BBC, because they're all gonna express an opinion that at least one viewer isn't going to like, especially when it comes to topics like Politics.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

I never get this argument.

Just because you pay a TV Licence, doesn't mean that people can't express differing viewpoints who work for the Channel.

I mean if we go with this argument then nobody would be allowed to work at the BBC, because they're all gonna express an opinion that at least one viewer isn't going to like, especially when it comes to topics like Politics.

i am forced in law to pay a tv licence, if i had a choice to pay or not, then employees of the bbc can say whatever they like and i can choose if i want to pay knowing that. While we are all forced in law to pay for it, bbc employees can keep their political opinions to themselves. The fact you don't care means, with respect, you arent paying for the licence

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

But the BBC has allowed other workers on the Channel get political in the past.

It was even discussed on Sky Sports News yesterday about the BBC picking and choosing who can be political out of their Presenters.

Yes Mock.
You are right.

However now it appears anyone connected with the BBC must not criticise Con government's policies.
Sugar can deride Starmer and compare Corbyn to Hitler, and have nothing said.

Fiona Bruce , Jo Coburn, and Kuenssberg show their full bias regularly.
HOWEVER their bias is FOR the Cons, so to the BBC and Con supporters that's fully acceptable.
Immaterial of if they attack opposition parties.

The BBC lost any moral high ground ages ago.
Especially after its failings re Saville.
Their appointments of political presenters are near ALL firm Con supporters.

Impartiality is a joke as to the BBC.
It's a disgrace really.
Just like the current Chairman of the BBC appointed politically by a Con government.
Who has an impartiality cloud himself hanging over him at present.

I agree with both your posts.
Why anyone in this Country has to pay a licence fee yearly to this corrupt and dictatorial organisation is a disgrace.
Lineker for strong ill put wording in a tweet on his Twitter account.
Gets pilloried.

While the vile, hateful inflammatory deliberately divisive lies from Braverman gets applauded.
That sadly is the awful and concerning place the UK is being supported to go by the BBC under this detestable rotten FROM the core government.
Plus the supporters of whom support and are allowing it to happen.

[bots]

Apparently all the match commentators have downed tools too, so that should make watching the matches entertaining

I think we could actually be watching the end of the bbc. They cant continue to force people to pay for something that they fundamentally disagree with

[arista]

Alternative MOTD
Live on GBnewsHD Tonight 10PM

Marc Dolan
Top Level Footballers in the studio

[arista]

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

ian wright and Shearer are on multiple sports channels, they are not reliant on the bbc for income, neither is lineker

Yeah but apparently the BeeB pay these three big -bucks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

The big difference being.
Bruce is a firm Con supporter so easing the pressure or defending anyone connected to the Cons will likely be overlooked and tolerated.
Even ON a political programme being broadcasted


Lineker was highlighting his dismay AT a Con and her hateful divisive rhetoric.
So him being critical of the Cons and not defending them.

He gets the action against him while Bruce gets supported and protected as usual.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by arista

Alternative MOTD
Live on GBnewsHD Tonight 10PM

Marc Dolan
Top Level Footballers in the studio

Clever scheduling !
Could become a thing if it’s a success as well - especially if they get a drop dead gorgeous hostess to keep them in line


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Zizu]

So no Beeb Live Score program this afternoon !!

This is dangerous as millions will get to see that the SkySports and the BT Sports programs are a better alternative !!


They are shooting themselves in the backside!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Livia]

So Gary's overpaid, inarticulate colleagues won't be appearing on Match of the Day. Who watches Match of the Day? People who can't afford Sky. So who are they hurting? Sack all the bloody commentators, they ruin a match anyway. Let's just see the football with no overpaid, over-confident ex-footballers with a tenuous grasp on the English language.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

The big difference being.
Bruce is a firm Con supporter so easing the pressure or defending anyone connected to the Cons will likely be overlooked and tolerated.
Even ON a political programme being broadcasted


Lineker was highlighting his dismay AT a Con and her hateful divisive rhetoric.
So him being critical of the Cons and not defending them.

He gets the action against him while Bruce gets supported and protected as usual.

And of course there was Andrew Neil as chairman of The Spectator the entire time he worked for the BBC

BBC seem to have singled Lineker out I wonder why.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

And of course there was Andrew Neil as chairman of The Spectator the entire time he worked for the BBC

BBC seem to have singled Lineker out I wonder why.

Because he accused the government of using language the Nazis used in the 30s, showing his deep and profound ignorance of Germany in the 30s.

[Liam-]

Gary Linekar is being victimised by a government that is hellbent on destroying the right to descent, they’ve already criminalised protest, they’re trying to make striking illegal and now they’re using their friends in high places to assert their power over people who publicly speak against them, they’re angry about being compared to fascists, but they prove time and time again, that they’re willing to act like fascists if and when it suits them

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Livia

Because he accused the government of using language the Nazis used in the 30s, showing his deep and profound ignorance of Germany in the 30s.

You're saying they suspended him for his lack of knowledge? Doesn't seem like a very good reason

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Livia

So Gary's overpaid, inarticulate colleagues won't be appearing on Match of the Day. Who watches Match of the Day? People who can't afford Sky. So who are they hurting? Sack all the bloody commentators, they ruin a match anyway. Let's just see the football with no overpaid, over-confident ex-footballers with a tenuous grasp on the English language.

That’s what they’re planning on doing .. although I rather like having a commentary.. unless it’s Alex Scott or someone not identifying as male


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Liam-]

This is all a rather convenient debacle for the tories though, the party that wants to get rid of the bbc all together, pushing for action to be taken they know will highlight the ridiculousness of having paid bad actors at the helm of the organisation, so they can then blame the actual bbc itself rather than the people they’ve placed there to cause the downfall, it’s political chess

[GiRTh]

I remember when Sky got rid of Le Tissier, Charlie Nicholas etc. People on here were up in arms but apparently its different for MOTD. I get it. I see it now.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Zizu

That’s what they’re planning on doing .. although I rather like having a commentary.. unless it’s Alex Scott or someone not identifying as male


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

What I hate about commentators is the twaddle they speak. If it's Man U or C, or one of the big Arab-funded clubs who can buy all the top players and they get the ball you can almost imagine the commentary team stroking their own genitals. Maybe I'm bitter because I'm a West Ham fan... in fact, that's definitely it.