St Stephen's Day Or Boxing Day, What Do...
ChatterBank0 min ago
Is Gary Lineker Correct?
130 Answers
I don't think so. This country cannot cope with more illegal immigrants. We just haven't got the capacity for them. And we need a really strong deterrent, but is this action strong enough by the govt? And will it work?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Lineker is a bit of a prat it has to be said. On the one hand he gets all righteously indignant about attempts to stop the boats and that he will "continue to speak up", and yet on the other he's perfectly happy to spend 6 weeks in Qatar, which has a dreadful record of treatment of people. If he was genuine, he would have refused to attend the World Cup and foregone the...
07:44 Thu 09th Mar 2023
Lineker is a bit of a prat it has to be said.
On the one hand he gets all righteously indignant about attempts to stop the boats and that he will "continue to speak up", and yet on the other he's perfectly happy to spend 6 weeks in Qatar, which has a dreadful record of treatment of people. If he was genuine, he would have refused to attend the World Cup and foregone the fee, but as he isn't, he didn't.
Like many of his ilk, he's happy to be inconsistent where the inconsistency is to his benefit.
On the one hand he gets all righteously indignant about attempts to stop the boats and that he will "continue to speak up", and yet on the other he's perfectly happy to spend 6 weeks in Qatar, which has a dreadful record of treatment of people. If he was genuine, he would have refused to attend the World Cup and foregone the fee, but as he isn't, he didn't.
Like many of his ilk, he's happy to be inconsistent where the inconsistency is to his benefit.
I maintain my position that the BBC does not have the right to indulge in rank hypocrisy, by trumpeting the sacrosanct concept of free speech, while simultaneously gagging the opinions of one of its star presenters.
That said, I think Mr Lineker is in danger of chasing his quarry over a cliff.
It would have beeb prudent to step back and let the furore die down.
Instead he is ribbing his employers' noses in it, and may force them into showing their mettle to the public who pay all of them, by sacking him.
That would be a pyrrhic victory, and a pointless gesture from someone who is in danger of losing sight of the simple fact, that sports presenters are not irreplaceable, but the BBC possibly is.
That said, I think Mr Lineker is in danger of chasing his quarry over a cliff.
It would have beeb prudent to step back and let the furore die down.
Instead he is ribbing his employers' noses in it, and may force them into showing their mettle to the public who pay all of them, by sacking him.
That would be a pyrrhic victory, and a pointless gesture from someone who is in danger of losing sight of the simple fact, that sports presenters are not irreplaceable, but the BBC possibly is.
I think many employers, whilst valuing free speech, prioritise not bringing their organisation into disrepute. Sometimes values clash and one has to decide which is more important. One could argue, of course, that anything an employee does outside of the workplace is no concern of the employer, but good luck convincing society of that.
The thorny issue is, at what point is anyone an employee, and at what point a private citizen, with the privileges and responsibilities involved in both.
At no point has Mr Lineker even hinted that he is speaking from any other point than his own as a private citizen.
On that basis, he can be taken as a gobby talking head who understands little of what he is talking about.
Clearly the BBC's impartiality rules must rightly be applied to its news journalists, nearly all of whom are contracted to the company.
But Mr Lineker is a sports presenter, and a freelance, and he will no doubt be arguing that the BBC had no control over his actions as a private citizen.
We shall see ...
At no point has Mr Lineker even hinted that he is speaking from any other point than his own as a private citizen.
On that basis, he can be taken as a gobby talking head who understands little of what he is talking about.
Clearly the BBC's impartiality rules must rightly be applied to its news journalists, nearly all of whom are contracted to the company.
But Mr Lineker is a sports presenter, and a freelance, and he will no doubt be arguing that the BBC had no control over his actions as a private citizen.
We shall see ...
//The director general, Tim Davie, has made impartiality a key platform of his leadership....Davie has previously said: "If you want to be an opinionated columnist or a partisan campaigner on social media then that is a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC."....All staff and on-air talent are bound by "due" impartiality which the BBC is committed to achieving across its output.//
https:/
https:/
It would appear that the BBC is now being bitten on the bottom by a situation it should have acknowledged and dealt with some time ago.
Specifically - if as the DG says, the BBC is making impartiality the central core of its values, then that rule should be written in large capital letters in each and every contract signed by any employee, contracted or freelance, news, sport, music, gardening, anything at all.
What has happened is one of two things.
Either the BBC has written such obligations into it contracts, and Mr Lineker has decided to flout them for his own self-aggrandizement, in which case he should have disciplined, suspended, and dismissed.
Or, the contractual wording is absent, or so woolly it can be willfully ignored without sanction.
Neither of these options show the BBC in anything approaching a good light, and its continued dithering merely makes it look even more ineffectual.
Today therefore, we have Mr Lineker deliberately tramping all over the situation with gleeful abandon, advertising his contempt for his employers, and the license holders who pay both of them.
And the BBC telling us that they are jolly well going to be really really cross, and their naughty boy is going to get a serious finger-wagging and asked pleadingly not to do it again.
Lineker looks arrogant and stupid, the BBC looks weak and stupid, and this could and should have been seen and dealt with when the issue of tweeting first raised its pointless head.
The BBC has to act today, and make it clear that presenters are not beyond its control, and it will not have its rules flouted, even though it may not have actually advised people what they are.
Specifically - if as the DG says, the BBC is making impartiality the central core of its values, then that rule should be written in large capital letters in each and every contract signed by any employee, contracted or freelance, news, sport, music, gardening, anything at all.
What has happened is one of two things.
Either the BBC has written such obligations into it contracts, and Mr Lineker has decided to flout them for his own self-aggrandizement, in which case he should have disciplined, suspended, and dismissed.
Or, the contractual wording is absent, or so woolly it can be willfully ignored without sanction.
Neither of these options show the BBC in anything approaching a good light, and its continued dithering merely makes it look even more ineffectual.
Today therefore, we have Mr Lineker deliberately tramping all over the situation with gleeful abandon, advertising his contempt for his employers, and the license holders who pay both of them.
And the BBC telling us that they are jolly well going to be really really cross, and their naughty boy is going to get a serious finger-wagging and asked pleadingly not to do it again.
Lineker looks arrogant and stupid, the BBC looks weak and stupid, and this could and should have been seen and dealt with when the issue of tweeting first raised its pointless head.
The BBC has to act today, and make it clear that presenters are not beyond its control, and it will not have its rules flouted, even though it may not have actually advised people what they are.
I've listened to a few BBC employees talking about the requirement for political impartiality and as I understand it, it is a formal requirement so presume it is written into all contracts. Gary Lineker says he is speaking out for those with no voice and gave me, at least, the impression that he will continue to do so, so whether 'self-aggrandizement' is a factor can only be a matter of speculation.
The BBC has made it clear that it will be having a serious conversation with Gary Lineker, so given his apparent determination to speak for those who have no voice, I wonder if he'll be job-hunting soon?
The BBC has made it clear that it will be having a serious conversation with Gary Lineker, so given his apparent determination to speak for those who have no voice, I wonder if he'll be job-hunting soon?
Lineker could probably make more money somewhere else.
The BBC did not make a platform for him. The BBC got him in the first place because of what he'd done in his sporting past.
He has an opinion. Why shouldn't he share it on Twitter if he wants to? He's not speaking on behalf of the BBC and he's not a BBC news presenter.
As I said previously, in the context of Lineker, the hypocrisy over BBC Chairman Richard Sharp's position is startling ...
The BBC did not make a platform for him. The BBC got him in the first place because of what he'd done in his sporting past.
He has an opinion. Why shouldn't he share it on Twitter if he wants to? He's not speaking on behalf of the BBC and he's not a BBC news presenter.
As I said previously, in the context of Lineker, the hypocrisy over BBC Chairman Richard Sharp's position is startling ...
Ellipsis - // He has an opinion. Why shouldn't he share it on Twitter if he wants to? He's not speaking on behalf of the BBC and he's not a BBC news presenter. //
That was exactly my position when this story broke.
But as more information comes to light, it is influencing and shifting my view.
I do believe in the sanctity of free speech, but as we know of old on here, that does not entitle you falsely to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.
Mr Linkeker appears to have gone beyond simply expressing his view, and using the situation to taunt his employers by highlighting their dithering, and apparent unwillingness to address this issue, which as i said earlier, they should have done some time ago.
I believe that if he taunts them into a 'Go on then, sack me if you dare ...' scenario, they will be forced to do exactly that, which helps no-one.
The BBC is in a hole of its own creation, and it needs to climb out quickly and decisively, today if possible.
That was exactly my position when this story broke.
But as more information comes to light, it is influencing and shifting my view.
I do believe in the sanctity of free speech, but as we know of old on here, that does not entitle you falsely to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.
Mr Linkeker appears to have gone beyond simply expressing his view, and using the situation to taunt his employers by highlighting their dithering, and apparent unwillingness to address this issue, which as i said earlier, they should have done some time ago.
I believe that if he taunts them into a 'Go on then, sack me if you dare ...' scenario, they will be forced to do exactly that, which helps no-one.
The BBC is in a hole of its own creation, and it needs to climb out quickly and decisively, today if possible.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.