FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Gary Lineker and the BBC

Jump to newest
 

By *ssex_tom OP   Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

Opinion that he runs rings around BBC bosses with his social media. Tom is on the fence. Why should be silenced? Why should he not have an opinion? But then again. Should he be impartial and if so why?

Let fab be the jury on this one.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *enk15Man
over a year ago

Evesham

I don't understand why so much stock is placed on his opinions, and why it triggers so many when he dares to talk about anything other than football.

It's his Twitter account, let him say what he wants.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aitonelMan
over a year ago

Liverpool

He should be able to say what he likes, regardless of if you agree or not. It's as simple as that.

I don't like him, I don't always agree with him but it is rather comical seeing people that cry about free speech being taken away and censored then go on to say "he should keep his opinion to himself".

I like the chaos he causes with what he says.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I don't understand why so much stock is placed on his opinions, and why it triggers so many when he dares to talk about anything other than football.

It's his Twitter account, let him say what he wants.

"

Its because he's an over rated expensively paid Pillock costing licencepayer money and breaking rules of his contract.

Get shot of him! Asap

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Carol Vorderman recently parted with bbc and was quite open about why. A new contract put limits on what she could and couldn’t say on social media, so she left

If it’s in his contract, then he either shouldn’t sign it and follow Carols actions, or uphold what he signed his name too

If you sign a contract taking away your free speech, you can’t complain about it

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eachcplCouple
over a year ago

blackpool/preston/normandy france

Why does anyone take any notice of what Linaker says. He is just an overpaid ex footballer, nothing more.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aitonelMan
over a year ago

Liverpool

Point proven

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Opinion that he runs rings around BBC bosses with his social media. Tom is on the fence. Why should be silenced? Why should he not have an opinion? But then again. Should he be impartial and if so why?

Let fab be the jury on this one. "

I'm not personally bothered by his posts....

But, in a way though I think he actually does more harm than good to his own case. He's easily portrayed as the classical woke celebrity who's out of touch and bangs on about issues which he is largely insulated from.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

It's nice to see a different point of view to that of the Mail, Sun, Express and so on being given some air.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I had a brief the other day on equality, diversion and inclusivity within the work place from a team of lawyers.

The interesting fact is that what you post on your social media if it is deemed to be against what your company stands for then you can be dismissed

I was in some ways shocked. It’s your social media, where’s freedom of speech.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's nice to see a different point of view to that of the Mail, Sun, Express and so on being given some air. "

Try the Guardian

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *2000ManMan
over a year ago

Worthing

Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen."

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aissez-faireMan
over a year ago

Right behind you…. Boo

The letter he signed doesn’t breach his contract.

He was called out by a minister for signing the letter and it was his response to those comments that has potentially caused a problem. Perhaps we should expect ministers with thicker skin?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The letter he signed doesn’t breach his contract.

He was called out by a minister for signing the letter and it was his response to those comments that has potentially caused a problem. Perhaps we should expect ministers with thicker skin? "

Nothing to do with ministers have thick skin or not...of you're impartial you're not meant to display a clear political preference.

If Lineker was posting tweets which displayed viewes similar to Nigel Farage you can bet he would suspended lol

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aissez-faireMan
over a year ago

Right behind you…. Boo


"The letter he signed doesn’t breach his contract.

He was called out by a minister for signing the letter and it was his response to those comments that has potentially caused a problem. Perhaps we should expect ministers with thicker skin?

Nothing to do with ministers have thick skin or not...of you're impartial you're not meant to display a clear political preference.

If Lineker was posting tweets which displayed viewes similar to Nigel Farage you can bet he would suspended lol "

If a minister wants to make comments about Liniker they shouldn’t then whine to the BBC because he responds.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The letter he signed doesn’t breach his contract.

He was called out by a minister for signing the letter and it was his response to those comments that has potentially caused a problem. Perhaps we should expect ministers with thicker skin?

Nothing to do with ministers have thick skin or not...of you're impartial you're not meant to display a clear political preference.

If Lineker was posting tweets which displayed viewes similar to Nigel Farage you can bet he would suspended lol

If a minister wants to make comments about Liniker they shouldn’t then whine to the BBC because he responds. "

Not like this is a one off incident though is it

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept "

We pay the organisation that pays him

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *apperleymanMan
over a year ago

Nottingham

It’s up to the BBC if they want to pay him big money…

Is what he is saying going against the core values of the BBC? If so then disciplinary and get rid, if not then more power to him..

Pretty sure he wouldn’t be out of work long if he left..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It’s up to the BBC if they want to pay him big money…

Is what he is saying going against the core values of the BBC? If so then disciplinary and get rid, if not then more power to him..

Pretty sure he wouldn’t be out of work long if he left.. "

Yeah, the value of impartially lol

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept

We pay the organisation that pays him"

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *apperleymanMan
over a year ago

Nottingham

What is he saying that’s so very damaging to the moral core of the country?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hocolate37Man
over a year ago

Heathrow

In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson' comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

I'm sorry, but whether you like Lineker or not, these are hardly worth the outrage - the poor sensitive souls can dish it out, but seems they can't handle a clap-back??

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)

If Lineker comments on BBC, I can see why they should manage what he's saying and ensure impartiality.

If he comments off BBC, then he's entitled to his opinion.

I find it strange that people here are giving an opinion about him not giving an opinion.

Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aitonelMan
over a year ago

Liverpool

Thought this was some sort of fantasy story based on the title.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ora the explorerWoman
over a year ago

Paradise, Herts


"Thought this was some sort of fantasy story based on the title. "

too funny

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *UGGYBEAR2015Man
over a year ago

BRIDPORT


"If Lineker comments on BBC, I can see why they should manage what he's saying and ensure impartiality.

If he comments off BBC, then he's entitled to his opinion.

I find it strange that people here are giving an opinion about him not giving an opinion.

Gbat "

That’s not how it works though is it.

I know a woman who lost her job because of things she posted on a social media site.

As part of her profile it listed her job and role, the employer held that anything she said on that account reflected on them, as she had named them as her employers on that account.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ora the explorerWoman
over a year ago

Paradise, Herts


"If Lineker comments on BBC, I can see why they should manage what he's saying and ensure impartiality.

If he comments off BBC, then he's entitled to his opinion.

I find it strange that people here are giving an opinion about him not giving an opinion.

Gbat

That’s not how it works though is it.

I know a woman who lost her job because of things she posted on a social media site.

As part of her profile it listed her job and role, the employer held that anything she said on that account reflected on them, as she had named them as her employers on that account. "

This is true. You have to be very careful in lots of jobs. I don’t do social media at all, apart from here where I can say what I like as nobody knows me

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)


"That’s not how it works though is it. "

But it IS how it works.

He's got a specific contract and has not breached it. That's why he's still there.

"Freelance journalists still had to abide by the BBC’s strict guidelines on impartiality, fairness and accuracy. But other non-staff contributors had more room for manoeuvre depending on their contracts – the wording of which has always been shrouded in secrecy." An extract from an online article in The Wire.

Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ebauchedDeviantsPt2Couple
over a year ago

Cumbria

He seems to get the free speech purists to change their minds very quickly, that’s for sure.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *apperleymanMan
over a year ago

Nottingham


"He seems to get the free speech purists to change their minds very quickly, that’s for sure."

It’s only free speech if you agree with them.

Lee Anderson is a right bell end..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson' comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

I'm sorry, but whether you like Lineker or not, these are hardly worth the outrage - the poor sensitive souls can dish it out, but seems they can't handle a clap-back?? "

The word touche comes to mind..

A government in its last year wanting to deflect from multiple failings in it's performance..

Who knew eh..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icolerobbieCouple
over a year ago

walsall

Get rid of him. He’s way over payed with licence fee payers money.

This has nothing to do with his opinions, just the fact he’s so over payed and milking the gravy train.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hocolate37Man
over a year ago

Heathrow


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson' comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

I'm sorry, but whether you like Lineker or not, these are hardly worth the outrage - the poor sensitive souls can dish it out, but seems they can't handle a clap-back??

The word touche comes to mind..

A government in its last year wanting to deflect from multiple failings in it's performance..

Who knew eh.."

...and who'd have thought such simple written slap-downs would have cut them so deep? The government's equivalent of "Miss, he's being mean!!"

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)


"

...and who'd have thought such simple written slap-downs would have cut them so deep? The government's equivalent of "Miss, he's being mean!!" "

Hah! Class.

Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson' comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

I'm sorry, but whether you like Lineker or not, these are hardly worth the outrage - the poor sensitive souls can dish it out, but seems they can't handle a clap-back??

The word touche comes to mind..

A government in its last year wanting to deflect from multiple failings in it's performance..

Who knew eh..

...and who'd have thought such simple written slap-downs would have cut them so deep? The government's equivalent of "Miss, he's being mean!!" "

Always thought that Lee Anderson was a gobshite but turns out he's a whiny snowflake..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Cool Stanfield effect.

While there may be a SM policy, I'd be somewhat nervous if a company stopped and employee from writing to politicians.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Was there any comments from Esther McVey the Minister for Common Sense..? Surely her opinion is the one that really matters in Government.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Was there any comments from Esther McVey the Minister for Common Sense..? Surely her opinion is the one that really matters in Government."

She's too busy, the overwhelming enormity of the task ahead is keeping her up late..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)


"Was there any comments from Esther McVey the Minister for Common Sense..? Surely her opinion is the one that really matters in Government."

Common Sense is poorly labelled as I find it's not actually that common!!

Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Was there any comments from Esther McVey the Minister for Common Sense..? Surely her opinion is the one that really matters in Government.

Common Sense is poorly labelled as I find it's not actually that common!!

Gbat "

Its why they have a minister for it. To spread it far and wide..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Was there any comments from Esther McVey the Minister for Common Sense..? Surely her opinion is the one that really matters in Government.

Common Sense is poorly labelled as I find it's not actually that common!!

Gbat

Its why they have a minister for it. To spread it far and wide.. "

Off coarse the job should have gone to Jarvis Cocker.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otsossieMan
over a year ago

Chesterfield


"It's his Twitter account, let him say what he wants. "

Folk get upset when he says things they don’t agree with.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"Opinion that he runs rings around BBC bosses with his social media. Tom is on the fence. Why should be silenced? Why should he not have an opinion? But then again. Should he be impartial and if so why?

Let fab be the jury on this one. "

It’s quite simple. If he signs up to a code of conduct then he needs to stick to it.

If he can’t stick to it and wants to make personal attacks on individual politicians then he should resign in order to give himself more freedom.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Mad how folk get bent of shape by the guy expressing his opinion. He’s generally morally correct ! Agenda ridden cry arses! Either super Tory’s or farage type followers shouting about him

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ellhungvweMan
over a year ago

Cheltenham


"I don't understand why so much stock is placed on his opinions, and why it triggers so many when he dares to talk about anything other than football.

It's his Twitter account, let him say what he wants.

"

It is a basic cognitive bias to assume that skill in one area (football) translates into others. It doesn’t but people switch off and just assume that because someone is famous/has done something then whatever they say is sound.

Pretty much everyone is susceptible to some degree - and if you say you don’t then you just don’t realise you are doing it.

This bias does really mean that people in the public eye have a massively overweight ability to influence opinion and I think different rules need to apply. They are not like any of us.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *apperleymanMan
over a year ago

Nottingham


"Opinion that he runs rings around BBC bosses with his social media. Tom is on the fence. Why should be silenced? Why should he not have an opinion? But then again. Should he be impartial and if so why?

Let fab be the jury on this one.

It’s quite simple. If he signs up to a code of conduct then he needs to stick to it.

If he can’t stick to it and wants to make personal attacks on individual politicians then he should resign in order to give himself more freedom. "

Why on earth would he want to do that? If someone wanted to pay me £££ to chat shit about football and slag off Tories… well where do I sign up??

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

I think it's ironic that the BBC are trying to keep him quiet yet they are happy to ram their woke agenda down people's throats.

Hardly impartial if people don't have a say or choice.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *apperleymanMan
over a year ago

Nottingham

Woke agenda (ironic laughing face)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)


"It is a basic cognitive bias to assume that skill in one area (football) translates into others. It doesn’t but people switch off and just assume that because someone is famous/has done something then whatever they say is sound."

Politics is so integral to everyday life that EVERYBODY should hold an opinion on most issues.

You could flip your post and say that because he was a good footballer, that doesn't mean he can't hold interesting (and sound) opinions on political issues.

His opinions are no more valid but equally, no less valid than anyone else's.

And let's not forget, many politicians have had a previous career.

Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Why are people in power afraid of him?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ellhungvweMan
over a year ago

Cheltenham


"It is a basic cognitive bias to assume that skill in one area (football) translates into others. It doesn’t but people switch off and just assume that because someone is famous/has done something then whatever they say is sound.

Politics is so integral to everyday life that EVERYBODY should hold an opinion on most issues.

You could flip your post and say that because he was a good footballer, that doesn't mean he can't hold interesting (and sound) opinions on political issues.

His opinions are no more valid but equally, no less valid than anyone else's.

And let's not forget, many politicians have had a previous career.

Gbat"

I didn’t say that a footballer wasn’t capable of being skillfull in other areas - just that it was unlikely he was going to be anything other than average outside of his core skill but that doesn’t stop people from imputing skill where it doesn’t exist.

I 100% agree that democracy works best when everyone is capable of making their own opinions. The problem is that people are proven not to be capable of consistently keeping their opinions under external influence. Its the reason marketing and advertising works so well in getting you to buy one brand over another.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"It is a basic cognitive bias to assume that skill in one area (football) translates into others. It doesn’t but people switch off and just assume that because someone is famous/has done something then whatever they say is sound.

Politics is so integral to everyday life that EVERYBODY should hold an opinion on most issues.

You could flip your post and say that because he was a good footballer, that doesn't mean he can't hold interesting (and sound) opinions on political issues.

His opinions are no more valid but equally, no less valid than anyone else's.

And let's not forget, many politicians have had a previous career.

Gbat"

Some even claim to be fans of football..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"Mad how folk get bent of shape by the guy expressing his opinion. He’s generally morally correct ! Agenda ridden cry arses! Either super Tory’s or farage type followers shouting about him "

It’s not what he says, it’s the fact that he has signed a code of conduct that limits what he can post, and he ignores it.

If he is so principled he should resign to get away from the constraints he signed up to

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"Opinion that he runs rings around BBC bosses with his social media. Tom is on the fence. Why should be silenced? Why should he not have an opinion? But then again. Should he be impartial and if so why?

Let fab be the jury on this one.

It’s quite simple. If he signs up to a code of conduct then he needs to stick to it.

If he can’t stick to it and wants to make personal attacks on individual politicians then he should resign in order to give himself more freedom.

Why on earth would he want to do that? If someone wanted to pay me £££ to chat shit about football and slag off Tories… well where do I sign up??"

But that’s not the agreement he signed.

He signed a code of conduct that he does not adhere to.

He needs to make up his mind, respect the terms of his employment or find a different employer

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"Why are people in power afraid of him? "

Who is afraid of him? Why make stuff like that up?

If he doesn’t like the constraints that he signed up to, he should resign rather than break them.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oofy321Man
over a year ago

moon base zero

At my work we sign a contract not to post any pictures of celebrities we have selfies with

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *apperleymanMan
over a year ago

Nottingham


"At my work we sign a contract not to post any pictures of celebrities we have selfies with"

Aaaaaand what’s that got to do with Gary Lineker?

Wait… have you had a selfie with Gary??

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

If he isn’t employed by the bbc as a political analyst then why is he political point of view important to anyone?

In fact, because he is an independent contractor, he isn’t speaking for anyone other than himself.. and he is making sure that people are aware that his views are his own

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"At my work we sign a contract not to post any pictures of celebrities we have selfies with

Aaaaaand what’s that got to do with Gary Lineker?

Wait… have you had a selfie with Gary?? "

I think he is pointing out that many employers have constraints on what we can post. Simple.

If Gary doesn’t like the terms he signed up to, he should quit

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"If he isn’t employed by the bbc as a political analyst then why is he political point of view important to anyone?

In fact, because he is an independent contractor, he isn’t speaking for anyone other than himself.. and he is making sure that people are aware that his views are his own "

He is subject to constraints on what he can post. If he doesn’t like their constraints then he can work elsewhere and post whatever he likes … as long as his new employer is ok with that, of course

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *apperleymanMan
over a year ago

Nottingham


"At my work we sign a contract not to post any pictures of celebrities we have selfies with

Aaaaaand what’s that got to do with Gary Lineker?

Wait… have you had a selfie with Gary??

I think he is pointing out that many employers have constraints on what we can post. Simple.

If Gary doesn’t like the terms he signed up to, he should quit "

Have you read his contact?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hocolate37Man
over a year ago

Heathrow


"At my work we sign a contract not to post any pictures of celebrities we have selfies with

Aaaaaand what’s that got to do with Gary Lineker?

Wait… have you had a selfie with Gary??

I think he is pointing out that many employers have constraints on what we can post. Simple.

If Gary doesn’t like the terms he signed up to, he should quit

Have you read his contact? "

Wonder if it excludes replying to social media posts directed at him, too?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Was he bitching about Seabrooks?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"At my work we sign a contract not to post any pictures of celebrities we have selfies with

Aaaaaand what’s that got to do with Gary Lineker?

Wait… have you had a selfie with Gary??

I think he is pointing out that many employers have constraints on what we can post. Simple.

If Gary doesn’t like the terms he signed up to, he should quit

Have you read his contact? "

The relevant info is widely known

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *apperleymanMan
over a year ago

Nottingham


"At my work we sign a contract not to post any pictures of celebrities we have selfies with

Aaaaaand what’s that got to do with Gary Lineker?

Wait… have you had a selfie with Gary??

I think he is pointing out that many employers have constraints on what we can post. Simple.

If Gary doesn’t like the terms he signed up to, he should quit

Have you read his contact?

The relevant info is widely known "

That’s a no then..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hocolate37Man
over a year ago

Heathrow


"Was he bitching about Seabrooks?"

I posted his comments earlier in the thread...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Right fabsters. Can someone point me to the tweet in question. The one that broke the BBC SM rules. If looked at his X account and he starts posting after the newspapers/MPs come at him.

I can't even see him mention the letter before then.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ig1gaz1Man
over a year ago

bradford

just sack him and then the bbc wont have to ask for more money for there stupid tv licence.

paying liniker isnt value for money then find a much cheaper presenter instead.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ornucopiaMan
over a year ago

Bexley

I have no interest in him, anyway, other than feeling sorry for anyone whose surname happens to end with 'ker.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"At my work we sign a contract not to post any pictures of celebrities we have selfies with

Aaaaaand what’s that got to do with Gary Lineker?

Wait… have you had a selfie with Gary??

I think he is pointing out that many employers have constraints on what we can post. Simple.

If Gary doesn’t like the terms he signed up to, he should quit

Have you read his contact?

The relevant info is widely known

That’s a no then.. "

Correct. I haven’t read his contract. But I don’t need to, we all know the relevant restrictions, widely known.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hocolate37Man
over a year ago

Heathrow


"At my work we sign a contract not to post any pictures of celebrities we have selfies with

Aaaaaand what’s that got to do with Gary Lineker?

Wait… have you had a selfie with Gary??

I think he is pointing out that many employers have constraints on what we can post. Simple.

If Gary doesn’t like the terms he signed up to, he should quit

Have you read his contact?

The relevant info is widely known

That’s a no then..

Correct. I haven’t read his contract. But I don’t need to, we all know the relevant restrictions, widely known. "

Do those "widely known" restrictions include not replying to social media posts directed at him?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ulfilthmentMan
over a year ago

Just around the corner


"Carol Vorderman recently parted with bbc and was quite open about why. A new contract put limits on what she could and couldn’t say on social media, so she left

If it’s in his contract, then he either shouldn’t sign it and follow Carols actions, or uphold what he signed his name too

If you sign a contract taking away your free speech, you can’t complain about it "

Since none of us have any clue what is or isn’t in his contract, I’m going to assume that there’s nothing to stop him Xing about whatever he likes otherwise he would have been dismissed.

He’s a sports pundit ffs, not a news presenter, manager or trustee. His opinions in no way, shape, or form affect the so-called impartiality of the BBC.

It makes me wonder what the opinionated politicians that like to trot this out every few months are trying to distract us from.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept "

This makes no sense. His job has nothing to do with his opinion. He is free to air that as he wishes to do in his own time.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept

This makes no sense. His job has nothing to do with his opinion. He is free to air that as he wishes to do in his own time."

But he's an ambassador for the BBC, therefore if he goes around making strong political comments it does reflect on the BBC.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"Carol Vorderman recently parted with bbc and was quite open about why. A new contract put limits on what she could and couldn’t say on social media, so she left

If it’s in his contract, then he either shouldn’t sign it and follow Carols actions, or uphold what he signed his name too

If you sign a contract taking away your free speech, you can’t complain about it

Since none of us have any clue what is or isn’t in his contract, I’m going to assume that there’s nothing to stop him Xing about whatever he likes otherwise he would have been dismissed.

He’s a sports pundit ffs, not a news presenter, manager or trustee. His opinions in no way, shape, or form affect the so-called impartiality of the BBC.

It makes me wonder what the opinionated politicians that like to trot this out every few months are trying to distract us from."

We do know some of the restrictions.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept

This makes no sense. His job has nothing to do with his opinion. He is free to air that as he wishes to do in his own time.

But he's an ambassador for the BBC, therefore if he goes around making strong political comments it does reflect on the BBC.

"

He is a citizen before he is an employee. When he tweets he does so from his personal account. He is entitled to do so.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hocolate37Man
over a year ago

Heathrow


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept

This makes no sense. His job has nothing to do with his opinion. He is free to air that as he wishes to do in his own time.

But he's an ambassador for the BBC, therefore if he goes around making strong political comments it does reflect on the BBC.

"

I posted his comments earlier in the thread - I'm genuinely curious as to whether you or others think they're strong political statements?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ndy man 200Man
over a year ago

hereford

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept

This makes no sense. His job has nothing to do with his opinion. He is free to air that as he wishes to do in his own time.

But he's an ambassador for the BBC, therefore if he goes around making strong political comments it does reflect on the BBC.

He is a citizen before he is an employee. When he tweets he does so from his personal account. He is entitled to do so. "

No he isn’t. He signed up to a code of conduct, and should respect it

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)


"No he isn’t. "

As it's Panto season, "Oh yes he is!"


" He signed up to a code of conduct, and should respect it "

Nothing I've seen breaches any impartiality. Some cock makes a quick swipe at him on X, he responds in a humorous fashion and adroitly knocks them back. They need to get a grip and in my opinion, so does anyone else who thinks he's in the wrong for this.

Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If the BBC employees have to be impartial, should that mean MPs shouldn't comment on their behaviour. It doesn't feel fair that there's no right of reply/retort.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hocolate37Man
over a year ago

Heathrow


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept

This makes no sense. His job has nothing to do with his opinion. He is free to air that as he wishes to do in his own time.

But he's an ambassador for the BBC, therefore if he goes around making strong political comments it does reflect on the BBC.

He is a citizen before he is an employee. When he tweets he does so from his personal account. He is entitled to do so.

No he isn’t. He signed up to a code of conduct, and should respect it "

...rinse, and repeat...jeez, how many times??

What's in his signed code of conduct? And how has he broken it??

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"No he isn’t.

As it's Panto season, "Oh yes he is!"

He signed up to a code of conduct, and should respect it

Nothing I've seen breaches any impartiality. Some cock makes a quick swipe at him on X, he responds in a humorous fashion and adroitly knocks them back. They need to get a grip and in my opinion, so does anyone else who thinks he's in the wrong for this.

Gbat "

Shah seems pretty certain that it breaches the rules, and he knows the exact details a lot better than you and I

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)

Let's see!

Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"Let's see!

Gbat "

Unlikely that anything will happen

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)


"Unlikely that anything will happen "

Then it's unlikely that he's in breach of anything.

Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"Unlikely that anything will happen

Then it's unlikely that he's in breach of anything.

Gbat"

Not really. Shah has been very clear that it looks like a breach. I’m just saying they will probably fudge it and bumble along.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept

This makes no sense. His job has nothing to do with his opinion. He is free to air that as he wishes to do in his own time.

But he's an ambassador for the BBC, therefore if he goes around making strong political comments it does reflect on the BBC.

He is a citizen before he is an employee. When he tweets he does so from his personal account. He is entitled to do so. "

High profile individuals who are in the public eye, have to manage their personal social media.

All sorts of public figures have got into trouble for things they have posted on their Twitter. You can't pretend his twitter is completely separate from what he does on the BBC.

In this case as a highly prominent well known BBC presenter, Lineker should be politically impartial in public. He can have whatever opinions he's likes privately.

Also for the people saying he's just responding to a dig from a minister...this isn't the first time he's made political comments. None on cam claim this is a one off incident.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept

This makes no sense. His job has nothing to do with his opinion. He is free to air that as he wishes to do in his own time.

But he's an ambassador for the BBC, therefore if he goes around making strong political comments it does reflect on the BBC.

He is a citizen before he is an employee. When he tweets he does so from his personal account. He is entitled to do so.

High profile individuals who are in the public eye, have to manage their personal social media.

All sorts of public figures have got into trouble for things they have posted on their Twitter. You can't pretend his twitter is completely separate from what he does on the BBC.

In this case as a highly prominent well known BBC presenter, Lineker should be politically impartial in public. He can have whatever opinions he's likes privately.

Also for the people saying he's just responding to a dig from a minister...this isn't the first time he's made political comments. None on cam claim this is a one off incident.

"

His fanboys think he is a saint and can post anything he likes, without restriction.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept

This makes no sense. His job has nothing to do with his opinion. He is free to air that as he wishes to do in his own time.

But he's an ambassador for the BBC, therefore if he goes around making strong political comments it does reflect on the BBC.

He is a citizen before he is an employee. When he tweets he does so from his personal account. He is entitled to do so.

High profile individuals who are in the public eye, have to manage their personal social media.

All sorts of public figures have got into trouble for things they have posted on their Twitter. You can't pretend his twitter is completely separate from what he does on the BBC.

In this case as a highly prominent well known BBC presenter, Lineker should be politically impartial in public. He can have whatever opinions he's likes privately.

Also for the people saying he's just responding to a dig from a minister...this isn't the first time he's made political comments. None on cam claim this is a one off incident.

"
no one is making that claim.

But does that mean others can take a pop at him and he has to accept it ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hocolate37Man
over a year ago

Heathrow


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson's comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

"

...so, can somebody please tell me, which of these is the political statement? And I'll ask again, is he not allowed to respond to posts aimed at him??

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson's comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

...so, can somebody please tell me, which of these is the political statement? And I'll ask again, is he not allowed to respond to posts aimed at him??"

This isn't about one Twitter spat that's he's had, Lineker has consistently made clear his political stance on numerous occasions.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson's comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

...so, can somebody please tell me, which of these is the political statement? And I'll ask again, is he not allowed to respond to posts aimed at him??"

Thanks, I was just copy and pasting your original post and was going to ask the same.

Who the fuck is Schnapps to say that members of the public aren't entitled to comment on politics? Cheeky fucker!

Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ormalfornorfolkMan
over a year ago

Norwich


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept "

Also an organisation that employs Laura Kuenssberg, used to employ Richard Sharp and made lift quite difficult for Emily Maitlis.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson's comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

...so, can somebody please tell me, which of these is the political statement? And I'll ask again, is he not allowed to respond to posts aimed at him??

Thanks, I was just copy and pasting your original post and was going to ask the same.

Who the fuck is Schnapps to say that members of the public aren't entitled to comment on politics? Cheeky fucker!

Gbat "

What about every other political statement Lineker has made ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson's comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

...so, can somebody please tell me, which of these is the political statement? And I'll ask again, is he not allowed to respond to posts aimed at him??

Thanks, I was just copy and pasting your original post and was going to ask the same.

Who the fuck is Schnapps to say that members of the public aren't entitled to comment on politics? Cheeky fucker!

Gbat "

This isn’t about what shapps thinks people can or can’t post. He didn’t write the tiles that bbc presenters sign up to .

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson's comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

...so, can somebody please tell me, which of these is the political statement? And I'll ask again, is he not allowed to respond to posts aimed at him??

Thanks, I was just copy and pasting your original post and was going to ask the same.

Who the fuck is Schnapps to say that members of the public aren't entitled to comment on politics? Cheeky fucker!

Gbat "

Maybe calm down a bit?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)

UK switch, the other stuff has already been dealt with. This is separate.

Jimmy, my comment was specifically about Grant Slops.

He commented on X that Lineker should keep his nose out of politics, and it's my opinion that everyone should be as snout deep into politics as they can get.

Who does he think he is? Politics doesn't belong to politicians, it belongs to all of us.

Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ormalfornorfolkMan
over a year ago

Norwich


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept

This makes no sense. His job has nothing to do with his opinion. He is free to air that as he wishes to do in his own time.

But he's an ambassador for the BBC, therefore if he goes around making strong political comments it does reflect on the BBC.

He is a citizen before he is an employee. When he tweets he does so from his personal account. He is entitled to do so.

High profile individuals who are in the public eye, have to manage their personal social media.

All sorts of public figures have got into trouble for things they have posted on their Twitter. You can't pretend his twitter is completely separate from what he does on the BBC.

In this case as a highly prominent well known BBC presenter, Lineker should be politically impartial in public. He can have whatever opinions he's likes privately.

Also for the people saying he's just responding to a dig from a minister...this isn't the first time he's made political comments. None on cam claim this is a one off incident.

"

But he’s not a political journalist or presenter. Have you ever heard what Frankie Boyle says about the Conservative Party and its members?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"UK switch, the other stuff has already been dealt with. This is separate.

Jimmy, my comment was specifically about Grant Slops.

He commented on X that Lineker should keep his nose out of politics, and it's my opinion that everyone should be as snout deep into politics as they can get.

Who does he think he is? Politics doesn't belong to politicians, it belongs to all of us.

Gbat "

On a separate note, what's the weather like in Alicante

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)

I've just read your last comment. I'm very calm. I'm sitting in front of a lot fire with a glass of red wine.

Why would you think I wasn't calm? Are you projecting emotions onto my posts?

Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept

This makes no sense. His job has nothing to do with his opinion. He is free to air that as he wishes to do in his own time.

But he's an ambassador for the BBC, therefore if he goes around making strong political comments it does reflect on the BBC.

He is a citizen before he is an employee. When he tweets he does so from his personal account. He is entitled to do so.

High profile individuals who are in the public eye, have to manage their personal social media.

All sorts of public figures have got into trouble for things they have posted on their Twitter. You can't pretend his twitter is completely separate from what he does on the BBC.

In this case as a highly prominent well known BBC presenter, Lineker should be politically impartial in public. He can have whatever opinions he's likes privately.

Also for the people saying he's just responding to a dig from a minister...this isn't the first time he's made political comments. None on cam claim this is a one off incident.

But he’s not a political journalist or presenter. Have you ever heard what Frankie Boyle says about the Conservative Party and its members?"

Frankie Boyle was a lot funnier back in the day haha

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)


"On a separate note, what's the weather like in Alicante "

Great yesterday, much colder today. But is your comment a subtle way of asking why a Spanish resident should have a say in this? If so, I can answer that.

Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"UK switch, the other stuff has already been dealt with. This is separate.

Jimmy, my comment was specifically about Grant Slops.

He commented on X that Lineker should keep his nose out of politics, and it's my opinion that everyone should be as snout deep into politics as they can get.

Who does he think he is? Politics doesn't belong to politicians, it belongs to all of us.

Gbat "

I understand what you are saying, but you can’t get away from the fact that lineker has signed up to restrictions, and he appears to have breached them.

You seem to be saying that he should not be subject to any restrictions, but he is. He signed up them willingly, while getting paid millions .

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"On a separate note, what's the weather like in Alicante

Great yesterday, much colder today. But is your comment a subtle way of asking why a Spanish resident should have a say in this? If so, I can answer that.

Gbat "

Wow touchy touchy...not at all. It's more that the weather is cold and shit here and I would love some winter sun.

Been looking at flights to good old Tenerife haha

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hocolate37Man
over a year ago

Heathrow


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson's comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

...so, can somebody please tell me, which of these is the political statement? And I'll ask again, is he not allowed to respond to posts aimed at him??

This isn't about one Twitter spat that's he's had, Lineker has consistently made clear his political stance on numerous occasions.

"

But these are the posts that have supposedly breached, right? So it kinda is, as the previous ones weren't considered worthy of his contract being terminated...look, I'm no Lineker fanboy, but given he had his contract amended earlier in the year, he's not gonna be so stupid as to go out of his way to breach that - and these are hardly politically inflammatory, are they...2 of them reference Gullis' stupidity and Shapps' hypocrisy, the third is a humorous clap-back on Anderson.

I get that some people just don't like him, but if these are the "smoking guns", then they were definitely firing blanks.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"I've just read your last comment. I'm very calm. I'm sitting in front of a lot fire with a glass of red wine.

Why would you think I wasn't calm? Are you projecting emotions onto my posts?

Gbat "

The escalation of language …

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson's comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

...so, can somebody please tell me, which of these is the political statement? And I'll ask again, is he not allowed to respond to posts aimed at him??

This isn't about one Twitter spat that's he's had, Lineker has consistently made clear his political stance on numerous occasions.

But these are the posts that have supposedly breached, right? So it kinda is, as the previous ones weren't considered worthy of his contract being terminated...look, I'm no Lineker fanboy, but given he had his contract amended earlier in the year, he's not gonna be so stupid as to go out of his way to breach that - and these are hardly politically inflammatory, are they...2 of them reference Gullis' stupidity and Shapps' hypocrisy, the third is a humorous clap-back on Anderson.

I get that some people just don't like him, but if these are the "smoking guns", then they were definitely firing blanks. "

The thing is I don't have it in for him. I love Match of the Day and he's a good presenter. I equally don't actually mind his views.

But he's clearly not impartial haha

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)


"The escalation of language … "

It's not directed at anyone here, it's directed at a third party who will most likely never know it was said. Hardly me drawing a gun is it?

Don't you use swear words to try and emphasis a point? It's not uncommon!

Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hocolate37Man
over a year ago

Heathrow


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson's comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

...so, can somebody please tell me, which of these is the political statement? And I'll ask again, is he not allowed to respond to posts aimed at him??

This isn't about one Twitter spat that's he's had, Lineker has consistently made clear his political stance on numerous occasions.

But these are the posts that have supposedly breached, right? So it kinda is, as the previous ones weren't considered worthy of his contract being terminated...look, I'm no Lineker fanboy, but given he had his contract amended earlier in the year, he's not gonna be so stupid as to go out of his way to breach that - and these are hardly politically inflammatory, are they...2 of them reference Gullis' stupidity and Shapps' hypocrisy, the third is a humorous clap-back on Anderson.

I get that some people just don't like him, but if these are the "smoking guns", then they were definitely firing blanks.

The thing is I don't have it in for him. I love Match of the Day and he's a good presenter. I equally don't actually mind his views.

But he's clearly not impartial haha"

I'm not saying you do have it in for him...I just find it a bit weird that some here are quoting his contract and code of conduct without knowing what's in it (if they did know, they'd have posted that info, no doubt!!) - a statement from Shah saying "it APPEARS to have broken the rules" is nowhere near enough. And STILL, no-one said whether he's not allowed to respond to social media posts digging at him?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson's comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

...so, can somebody please tell me, which of these is the political statement? And I'll ask again, is he not allowed to respond to posts aimed at him??

This isn't about one Twitter spat that's he's had, Lineker has consistently made clear his political stance on numerous occasions.

But these are the posts that have supposedly breached, right? So it kinda is, as the previous ones weren't considered worthy of his contract being terminated...look, I'm no Lineker fanboy, but given he had his contract amended earlier in the year, he's not gonna be so stupid as to go out of his way to breach that - and these are hardly politically inflammatory, are they...2 of them reference Gullis' stupidity and Shapps' hypocrisy, the third is a humorous clap-back on Anderson.

I get that some people just don't like him, but if these are the "smoking guns", then they were definitely firing blanks.

The thing is I don't have it in for him. I love Match of the Day and he's a good presenter. I equally don't actually mind his views.

But he's clearly not impartial haha

I'm not saying you do have it in for him...I just find it a bit weird that some here are quoting his contract and code of conduct without knowing what's in it (if they did know, they'd have posted that info, no doubt!!) - a statement from Shah saying "it APPEARS to have broken the rules" is nowhere near enough. And STILL, no-one said whether he's not allowed to respond to social media posts digging at him?"

He is not allowed to express strong political views, or directly criticise individual politicians.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hocolate37Man
over a year ago

Heathrow


"

This isn't about one Twitter spat that's he's had, Lineker has consistently made clear his political stance on numerous occasions.

But these are the posts that have supposedly breached, right? So it kinda is, as the previous ones weren't considered worthy of his contract being terminated...look, I'm no Lineker fanboy, but given he had his contract amended earlier in the year, he's not gonna be so stupid as to go out of his way to breach that - and these are hardly politically inflammatory, are they...2 of them reference Gullis' stupidity and Shapps' hypocrisy, the third is a humorous clap-back on Anderson.

I get that some people just don't like him, but if these are the "smoking guns", then they were definitely firing blanks.

The thing is I don't have it in for him. I love Match of the Day and he's a good presenter. I equally don't actually mind his views.

But he's clearly not impartial haha

I'm not saying you do have it in for him...I just find it a bit weird that some here are quoting his contract and code of conduct without knowing what's in it (if they did know, they'd have posted that info, no doubt!!) - a statement from Shah saying "it APPEARS to have broken the rules" is nowhere near enough. And STILL, no-one said whether he's not allowed to respond to social media posts digging at him?

He is not allowed to express strong political views, or directly criticise individual politicians.

"
Even if they have a pop at him first? Seriously?? Then how did he get away with the "1930s Germany" comments then?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)


"He is not allowed to express strong political views, or directly criticise individual politicians. "

And do you think the three comments mentioned above contravene this?

Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"He is not allowed to express strong political views, or directly criticise individual politicians.

And do you think the three comments mentioned above contravene this?

Gbat "

Doesn’t matter what i think, I’m no expert on the subject. Someone like shah is a lot closer to the details.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ormalfornorfolkMan
over a year ago

Norwich


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept

This makes no sense. His job has nothing to do with his opinion. He is free to air that as he wishes to do in his own time.

But he's an ambassador for the BBC, therefore if he goes around making strong political comments it does reflect on the BBC.

He is a citizen before he is an employee. When he tweets he does so from his personal account. He is entitled to do so.

High profile individuals who are in the public eye, have to manage their personal social media.

All sorts of public figures have got into trouble for things they have posted on their Twitter. You can't pretend his twitter is completely separate from what he does on the BBC.

In this case as a highly prominent well known BBC presenter, Lineker should be politically impartial in public. He can have whatever opinions he's likes privately.

Also for the people saying he's just responding to a dig from a minister...this isn't the first time he's made political comments. None on cam claim this is a one off incident.

But he’s not a political journalist or presenter. Have you ever heard what Frankie Boyle says about the Conservative Party and its members?

Frankie Boyle was a lot funnier back in the day haha "

He’s become a bit of a caricature of himself but he admits to it I think. I’m glad he doesn’t make jokes about Rebecca Adlington anymore. You always want to be punching up.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"

This isn't about one Twitter spat that's he's had, Lineker has consistently made clear his political stance on numerous occasions.

But these are the posts that have supposedly breached, right? So it kinda is, as the previous ones weren't considered worthy of his contract being terminated...look, I'm no Lineker fanboy, but given he had his contract amended earlier in the year, he's not gonna be so stupid as to go out of his way to breach that - and these are hardly politically inflammatory, are they...2 of them reference Gullis' stupidity and Shapps' hypocrisy, the third is a humorous clap-back on Anderson.

I get that some people just don't like him, but if these are the "smoking guns", then they were definitely firing blanks.

The thing is I don't have it in for him. I love Match of the Day and he's a good presenter. I equally don't actually mind his views.

But he's clearly not impartial haha

I'm not saying you do have it in for him...I just find it a bit weird that some here are quoting his contract and code of conduct without knowing what's in it (if they did know, they'd have posted that info, no doubt!!) - a statement from Shah saying "it APPEARS to have broken the rules" is nowhere near enough. And STILL, no-one said whether he's not allowed to respond to social media posts digging at him?

He is not allowed to express strong political views, or directly criticise individual politicians.

Even if they have a pop at him first? Seriously?? Then how did he get away with the "1930s Germany" comments then? "

I didn’t draft the restrictions. Sounds like you don’t like the restrictions that lineker signed up to.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hocolate37Man
over a year ago

Heathrow


"

This isn't about one Twitter spat that's he's had, Lineker has consistently made clear his political stance on numerous occasions.

But these are the posts that have supposedly breached, right? So it kinda is, as the previous ones weren't considered worthy of his contract being terminated...look, I'm no Lineker fanboy, but given he had his contract amended earlier in the year, he's not gonna be so stupid as to go out of his way to breach that - and these are hardly politically inflammatory, are they...2 of them reference Gullis' stupidity and Shapps' hypocrisy, the third is a humorous clap-back on Anderson.

I get that some people just don't like him, but if these are the "smoking guns", then they were definitely firing blanks.

The thing is I don't have it in for him. I love Match of the Day and he's a good presenter. I equally don't actually mind his views.

But he's clearly not impartial haha

I'm not saying you do have it in for him...I just find it a bit weird that some here are quoting his contract and code of conduct without knowing what's in it (if they did know, they'd have posted that info, no doubt!!) - a statement from Shah saying "it APPEARS to have broken the rules" is nowhere near enough. And STILL, no-one said whether he's not allowed to respond to social media posts digging at him?

He is not allowed to express strong political views, or directly criticise individual politicians.

Even if they have a pop at him first? Seriously?? Then how did he get away with the "1930s Germany" comments then?

I didn’t draft the restrictions. Sounds like you don’t like the restrictions that lineker signed up to. "

...like them? I don't even know them!! My question was clear...if "He is not allowed to express strong political views, or directly criticise individual politicians", how has he got away with it with the weight of so much "evidence" against him??

I call bullsh1t. Bottom line, imho, Gullis, Shapps and Anderson are pathetic little bullies who don't like the fact that someone's called them out, and they've run to the headmaster to complain about him beating them up, while conveniently omitting the fact that they started it...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)


"Doesn’t matter what i think, I’m no expert on the subject. "

None of us here are experts, I imagine.

And if our opinions don't matter, why are we bothering to comment?

I was interested in your opinion and want to know what you think. Up to you whether you answer or not.

Either way, I'm off to bed.

Cheers,

Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I agree he is paid far too much. The biggest cost of living in the UK is housing.

Considering Lineker lives rent free in so many heads, am sure he could manage on a lot less...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ormalfornorfolkMan
over a year ago

Norwich


"

This isn't about one Twitter spat that's he's had, Lineker has consistently made clear his political stance on numerous occasions.

But these are the posts that have supposedly breached, right? So it kinda is, as the previous ones weren't considered worthy of his contract being terminated...look, I'm no Lineker fanboy, but given he had his contract amended earlier in the year, he's not gonna be so stupid as to go out of his way to breach that - and these are hardly politically inflammatory, are they...2 of them reference Gullis' stupidity and Shapps' hypocrisy, the third is a humorous clap-back on Anderson.

I get that some people just don't like him, but if these are the "smoking guns", then they were definitely firing blanks.

The thing is I don't have it in for him. I love Match of the Day and he's a good presenter. I equally don't actually mind his views.

But he's clearly not impartial haha

I'm not saying you do have it in for him...I just find it a bit weird that some here are quoting his contract and code of conduct without knowing what's in it (if they did know, they'd have posted that info, no doubt!!) - a statement from Shah saying "it APPEARS to have broken the rules" is nowhere near enough. And STILL, no-one said whether he's not allowed to respond to social media posts digging at him?

He is not allowed to express strong political views, or directly criticise individual politicians.

Even if they have a pop at him first? Seriously?? Then how did he get away with the "1930s Germany" comments then?

I didn’t draft the restrictions. Sounds like you don’t like the restrictions that lineker signed up to.

...like them? I don't even know them!! My question was clear...if "He is not allowed to express strong political views, or directly criticise individual politicians", how has he got away with it with the weight of so much "evidence" against him??

I call bullsh1t. Bottom line, imho, Gullis, Shapps and Anderson are pathetic little bullies who don't like the fact that someone's called them out, and they've run to the headmaster to complain about him beating them up, while conveniently omitting the fact that they started it..."

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *opinovMan
over a year ago

Point Nemo, Cumbria


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson' comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

I'm sorry, but whether you like Lineker or not, these are hardly worth the outrage - the poor sensitive souls can dish it out, but seems they can't handle a clap-back?? "

Yes, precisely this.

It seems to be mainly the same neanderthals who whine about 'woke snowflakes', 'cancel culture' and 'free speech' who also whine about people they don't like speaking freely.

Personally, I quite enjoy Lineker chucking it back in the faces of illiberal dick heads, whom he very easily outclasses.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ixtiesnymphoCouple
over a year ago

Machen


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept "

No he's not employed by the BBC. So he should be impartial when consulting on football related issues.

Outside of that freedom of speech applies.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ixtiesnymphoCouple
over a year ago

Machen


"If Lineker comments on BBC, I can see why they should manage what he's saying and ensure impartiality.

If he comments off BBC, then he's entitled to his opinion.

I find it strange that people here are giving an opinion about him not giving an opinion.

Gbat "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"Lineker is entitied to his opinion but does not mean I have to listen.

He's paid by an organization that is meant to be impartial, hence he shouldn't be airing strong political views. It's quite a simple concept

No he's not employed by the BBC. So he should be impartial when consulting on football related issues.

Outside of that freedom of speech applies. "

No, that’s not the terms he signed up to. That’s a fantasy

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ebauchedDeviantsPt2Couple
over a year ago

Cumbria


"Opinion that he runs rings around BBC bosses with his social media. Tom is on the fence. Why should be silenced? Why should he not have an opinion? But then again. Should he be impartial and if so why?

Let fab be the jury on this one.

It’s quite simple. If he signs up to a code of conduct then he needs to stick to it.

If he can’t stick to it and wants to make personal attacks on individual politicians then he should resign in order to give himself more freedom.

Why on earth would he want to do that? If someone wanted to pay me £££ to chat shit about football and slag off Tories… well where do I sign up??

But that’s not the agreement he signed.

He signed a code of conduct that he does not adhere to.

He needs to make up his mind, respect the terms of his employment or find a different employer "

Have you read this code of conduct he signed, because you seem to be very knowledgeable about it. Or is it that you don’t like what he says so you are desperate for him to have broken it so you can have a go at him?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ebauchedDeviantsPt2Couple
over a year ago

Cumbria


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson's comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

...so, can somebody please tell me, which of these is the political statement? And I'll ask again, is he not allowed to respond to posts aimed at him??

This isn't about one Twitter spat that's he's had, Lineker has consistently made clear his political stance on numerous occasions.

But these are the posts that have supposedly breached, right? So it kinda is, as the previous ones weren't considered worthy of his contract being terminated...look, I'm no Lineker fanboy, but given he had his contract amended earlier in the year, he's not gonna be so stupid as to go out of his way to breach that - and these are hardly politically inflammatory, are they...2 of them reference Gullis' stupidity and Shapps' hypocrisy, the third is a humorous clap-back on Anderson.

I get that some people just don't like him, but if these are the "smoking guns", then they were definitely firing blanks.

The thing is I don't have it in for him. I love Match of the Day and he's a good presenter. I equally don't actually mind his views.

But he's clearly not impartial haha"

Where in his contract does it say he isn’t allowed to respond to MPs who have a go at him?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"Doesn’t matter what i think, I’m no expert on the subject.

None of us here are experts, I imagine.

And if our opinions don't matter, why are we bothering to comment?

I was interested in your opinion and want to know what you think. Up to you whether you answer or not.

Either way, I'm off to bed.

Cheers,

Gbat "

My opinion:

- I think he probably has overstepped the mark again, either testing or breaching the limits of the constraints that he is subject to

- if he doesn’t like those constraints, and wants more freedom to post whether he likes, the solution is very straightforward, leave the bbc

- he likes the bbc money and wants to keep getting paid an obscene amount by them, but doesn’t think he needs to follow the rules that he signed up to.

Nobody forced him to sign up to the BBC, sign up to their rules or take their millions.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson's comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

...so, can somebody please tell me, which of these is the political statement? And I'll ask again, is he not allowed to respond to posts aimed at him??

This isn't about one Twitter spat that's he's had, Lineker has consistently made clear his political stance on numerous occasions.

But these are the posts that have supposedly breached, right? So it kinda is, as the previous ones weren't considered worthy of his contract being terminated...look, I'm no Lineker fanboy, but given he had his contract amended earlier in the year, he's not gonna be so stupid as to go out of his way to breach that - and these are hardly politically inflammatory, are they...2 of them reference Gullis' stupidity and Shapps' hypocrisy, the third is a humorous clap-back on Anderson.

I get that some people just don't like him, but if these are the "smoking guns", then they were definitely firing blanks.

The thing is I don't have it in for him. I love Match of the Day and he's a good presenter. I equally don't actually mind his views.

But he's clearly not impartial haha

Where in his contract does it say he isn’t allowed to respond to MPs who have a go at him?"

Whether or not someone has “had a go” at him is irrelevant in terms of what he is allowed to post. The rules clearly state that presenters are not allowed to post strong political views or personal criticism of individual politicians.

Don’t mix up what you think is right / fair and what the rules actually say.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *idnight RamblerMan
over a year ago

Pershore

His fame arises from his ability to hoof a ball around a field marginally better than the rest of us. How is he qualified to lecture the rest of us on topics beyond his field of expertise? You might as well get political opinions from your milkman.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex


"His fame arises from his ability to hoof a ball around a field marginally better than the rest of us. How is he qualified to lecture the rest of us on topics beyond his field of expertise? You might as well get political opinions from your milkman."

I'd certainly listen to my milkman's point of view. Why would his opinion be worth less than anyone else's

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"His fame arises from his ability to hoof a ball around a field marginally better than the rest of us. How is he qualified to lecture the rest of us on topics beyond his field of expertise? You might as well get political opinions from your milkman."

Marginally?

He gave his opinion on a current issue, not sure that's lecturing by any definition plus he stood up to a couple of Tory rent a gobs so fair play for that..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ebauchedDeviantsPt2Couple
over a year ago

Cumbria


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson's comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

...so, can somebody please tell me, which of these is the political statement? And I'll ask again, is he not allowed to respond to posts aimed at him??

This isn't about one Twitter spat that's he's had, Lineker has consistently made clear his political stance on numerous occasions.

But these are the posts that have supposedly breached, right? So it kinda is, as the previous ones weren't considered worthy of his contract being terminated...look, I'm no Lineker fanboy, but given he had his contract amended earlier in the year, he's not gonna be so stupid as to go out of his way to breach that - and these are hardly politically inflammatory, are they...2 of them reference Gullis' stupidity and Shapps' hypocrisy, the third is a humorous clap-back on Anderson.

I get that some people just don't like him, but if these are the "smoking guns", then they were definitely firing blanks.

The thing is I don't have it in for him. I love Match of the Day and he's a good presenter. I equally don't actually mind his views.

But he's clearly not impartial haha

Where in his contract does it say he isn’t allowed to respond to MPs who have a go at him?

Whether or not someone has “had a go” at him is irrelevant in terms of what he is allowed to post. The rules clearly state that presenters are not allowed to post strong political views or personal criticism of individual politicians.

Don’t mix up what you think is right / fair and what the rules actually say. "

I think you may have misinterpreted the guidelines. They state that presenters are allowed to express views on issues and policies but must stop short of overt political campaigning. I really don’t think responding to MPs who have had a go at him amounts to political campaigning.

You really must stop allowing your views on a person colour your opinion on whether they have broken rules.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ebauchedDeviantsPt2Couple
over a year ago

Cumbria


"His fame arises from his ability to hoof a ball around a field marginally better than the rest of us. How is he qualified to lecture the rest of us on topics beyond his field of expertise? You might as well get political opinions from your milkman."

Marginally? How many international caps do you have?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aitonelMan
over a year ago

Liverpool


"His fame arises from his ability to hoof a ball around a field marginally better than the rest of us. How is he qualified to lecture the rest of us on topics beyond his field of expertise? You might as well get political opinions from your milkman.

I'd certainly listen to my milkman's point of view. Why would his opinion be worth less than anyone else's "

Because it's not "my" opinion, or the opinion of those that share the same opinion as "me" so it automatically becomes less.

That's how the world works now, which is always hilarious because it's those that cry about not being allowed to have an opinion are the loudest and whiniest about condemning others expressing theirs. (culprits on both sides!)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"In response to Jonathan Gullis' comment that he should be sacked for breaching the BBC guidelines, Lineker wrote, "Jonathan hasn’t read the new guidelines….or, should I say, had someone read them to him?".

In response to Grant Shapps' comment that he should stick to football and not meddle in politics, Lineker wrote, "A tad rich coming from someone who can’t even stick to one name. 4 chaps Shapps."

And in response to Lee Anderson's comment that "For once in his life, Gary’s absolutely right - we do need a system that reflects the will of the British people. What the people want is to stop the boats and to tell overpaid crisp salesmen to put a sock in it. We need another robust system which keeps Lineker as far away from the public as possible, to give us all a rest from his left wing out of touch nonsense", Lineker wrote, "I guess we’ll find out what the will of the British people is at the next general election. If you do end up out of work, I’ll put in a word for you with Walkers."

...so, can somebody please tell me, which of these is the political statement? And I'll ask again, is he not allowed to respond to posts aimed at him??

This isn't about one Twitter spat that's he's had, Lineker has consistently made clear his political stance on numerous occasions.

But these are the posts that have supposedly breached, right? So it kinda is, as the previous ones weren't considered worthy of his contract being terminated...look, I'm no Lineker fanboy, but given he had his contract amended earlier in the year, he's not gonna be so stupid as to go out of his way to breach that - and these are hardly politically inflammatory, are they...2 of them reference Gullis' stupidity and Shapps' hypocrisy, the third is a humorous clap-back on Anderson.

I get that some people just don't like him, but if these are the "smoking guns", then they were definitely firing blanks.

The thing is I don't have it in for him. I love Match of the Day and he's a good presenter. I equally don't actually mind his views.

But he's clearly not impartial haha

Where in his contract does it say he isn’t allowed to respond to MPs who have a go at him?

Whether or not someone has “had a go” at him is irrelevant in terms of what he is allowed to post. The rules clearly state that presenters are not allowed to post strong political views or personal criticism of individual politicians.

Don’t mix up what you think is right / fair and what the rules actually say.

I think you may have misinterpreted the guidelines. They state that presenters are allowed to express views on issues and policies but must stop short of overt political campaigning. I really don’t think responding to MPs who have had a go at him amounts to political campaigning.

You really must stop allowing your views on a person colour your opinion on whether they have broken rules."

I am not allowing my opinion of a person colour mu objectivity.

Have I expressed an opinion of any kind about him? No.

I do think he should abide by rules that he voluntarily signed up for though.

And in this case, my understanding of the rules is slightly different to yours, that presenters are prohibited from openly criticising individual politicians, or expressing “strong political views”.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex


"His fame arises from his ability to hoof a ball around a field marginally better than the rest of us. How is he qualified to lecture the rest of us on topics beyond his field of expertise? You might as well get political opinions from your milkman.

I'd certainly listen to my milkman's point of view. Why would his opinion be worth less than anyone else's

Because it's not "my" opinion, or the opinion of those that share the same opinion as "me" so it automatically becomes less.

That's how the world works now, which is always hilarious because it's those that cry about not being allowed to have an opinion are the loudest and whiniest about condemning others expressing theirs. (culprits on both sides!) "

Yep and try to shut them down.

How worried must people be about one man's influence? It's almost as if lots of people believe we can't think for ourselves...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ancelotLovejoyMan
over a year ago

Penryn

Gary Lineker

Honestly who cares??

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"His fame arises from his ability to hoof a ball around a field marginally better than the rest of us. How is he qualified to lecture the rest of us on topics beyond his field of expertise? You might as well get political opinions from your milkman.

I'd certainly listen to my milkman's point of view. Why would his opinion be worth less than anyone else's

Because it's not "my" opinion, or the opinion of those that share the same opinion as "me" so it automatically becomes less.

That's how the world works now, which is always hilarious because it's those that cry about not being allowed to have an opinion are the loudest and whiniest about condemning others expressing theirs. (culprits on both sides!) "

When it comes to valuing opinions, I am influenced by all sorts of factors … the person’s level of expertise in the area that they are discussing, their level of impartiality / objectivity, their past record of accuracy etc .

… so when some people voice an opinion I know it comes from a deep level of understanding, is objective / fair, and is likely to be reliable. If that’s the milkman, great. A friend of mine who I find does an amazing job of understanding what is happening, and what the best thing to do might be, is a retired shoe salesman.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex


"Gary Lineker

Honestly who cares??"

A great many people, clearly.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"His fame arises from his ability to hoof a ball around a field marginally better than the rest of us. How is he qualified to lecture the rest of us on topics beyond his field of expertise? You might as well get political opinions from your milkman.

I'd certainly listen to my milkman's point of view. Why would his opinion be worth less than anyone else's

Because it's not "my" opinion, or the opinion of those that share the same opinion as "me" so it automatically becomes less.

That's how the world works now, which is always hilarious because it's those that cry about not being allowed to have an opinion are the loudest and whiniest about condemning others expressing theirs. (culprits on both sides!)

Yep and try to shut them down.

How worried must people be about one man's influence? It's almost as if lots of people believe we can't think for ourselves..."

Interesting that you assume that people are “worried” about his “influence”. I thought it was more about following rules that he had signed up to

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex


"His fame arises from his ability to hoof a ball around a field marginally better than the rest of us. How is he qualified to lecture the rest of us on topics beyond his field of expertise? You might as well get political opinions from your milkman.

I'd certainly listen to my milkman's point of view. Why would his opinion be worth less than anyone else's

Because it's not "my" opinion, or the opinion of those that share the same opinion as "me" so it automatically becomes less.

That's how the world works now, which is always hilarious because it's those that cry about not being allowed to have an opinion are the loudest and whiniest about condemning others expressing theirs. (culprits on both sides!)

Yep and try to shut them down.

How worried must people be about one man's influence? It's almost as if lots of people believe we can't think for ourselves...

Interesting that you assume that people are “worried” about his “influence”. I thought it was more about following rules that he had signed up to "

As I said if he's broken the terms of his contract he'll be sacked. He can continue to state his opinions then. However I was posting in relation to a comment that said he was lecturing us and you'd be better getting your political views from your milkman. That suggests to me that some people are concerned about his influence.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"His fame arises from his ability to hoof a ball around a field marginally better than the rest of us. How is he qualified to lecture the rest of us on topics beyond his field of expertise? You might as well get political opinions from your milkman.

I'd certainly listen to my milkman's point of view. Why would his opinion be worth less than anyone else's

Because it's not "my" opinion, or the opinion of those that share the same opinion as "me" so it automatically becomes less.

That's how the world works now, which is always hilarious because it's those that cry about not being allowed to have an opinion are the loudest and whiniest about condemning others expressing theirs. (culprits on both sides!)

Yep and try to shut them down.

How worried must people be about one man's influence? It's almost as if lots of people believe we can't think for ourselves...

Interesting that you assume that people are “worried” about his “influence”. I thought it was more about following rules that he had signed up to

As I said if he's broken the terms of his contract he'll be sacked. He can continue to state his opinions then. However I was posting in relation to a comment that said he was lecturing us and you'd be better getting your political views from your milkman. That suggests to me that some people are concerned about his influence."

To me that just meant that the poster didn’t really value his opinion, for whatever reason. Not that anyone was “worried”. I can’t see anything in that post that suggests fear.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ingu and The ApeCouple
over a year ago

The Igloo

He should wind his neck in, fold he ears up and concentrate on the two things he knows a little bit about. Crisps and football.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex


"His fame arises from his ability to hoof a ball around a field marginally better than the rest of us. How is he qualified to lecture the rest of us on topics beyond his field of expertise? You might as well get political opinions from your milkman.

I'd certainly listen to my milkman's point of view. Why would his opinion be worth less than anyone else's

Because it's not "my" opinion, or the opinion of those that share the same opinion as "me" so it automatically becomes less.

That's how the world works now, which is always hilarious because it's those that cry about not being allowed to have an opinion are the loudest and whiniest about condemning others expressing theirs. (culprits on both sides!)

Yep and try to shut them down.

How worried must people be about one man's influence? It's almost as if lots of people believe we can't think for ourselves...

Interesting that you assume that people are “worried” about his “influence”. I thought it was more about following rules that he had signed up to

As I said if he's broken the terms of his contract he'll be sacked. He can continue to state his opinions then. However I was posting in relation to a comment that said he was lecturing us and you'd be better getting your political views from your milkman. That suggests to me that some people are concerned about his influence.

To me that just meant that the poster didn’t really value his opinion, for whatever reason. Not that anyone was “worried”. I can’t see anything in that post that suggests fear. "

I see. That's the thing about opinions isn't it, when they're expressed we lose control of how they're interpreted.

My opinion is that worry isn't the same as fear however I do think that a lot of people fear his and other 'celebrities' influence on ordinary people.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex


"He should wind his neck in, fold he ears up and concentrate on the two things he knows a little bit about. Crisps and football. "

Why?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ebauchedDeviantsPt2Couple
over a year ago

Cumbria


"His fame arises from his ability to hoof a ball around a field marginally better than the rest of us. How is he qualified to lecture the rest of us on topics beyond his field of expertise? You might as well get political opinions from your milkman.

I'd certainly listen to my milkman's point of view. Why would his opinion be worth less than anyone else's

Because it's not "my" opinion, or the opinion of those that share the same opinion as "me" so it automatically becomes less.

That's how the world works now, which is always hilarious because it's those that cry about not being allowed to have an opinion are the loudest and whiniest about condemning others expressing theirs. (culprits on both sides!)

Yep and try to shut them down.

How worried must people be about one man's influence? It's almost as if lots of people believe we can't think for ourselves...

Interesting that you assume that people are “worried” about his “influence”. I thought it was more about following rules that he had signed up to "

You seem very invested in this, Jimmy. Do you work for the BBC?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Shouldn't people be more concerned with

*Current ministers able to write in newspapers or present on TV channels with their own bias

*Ex ministers no longer holding any relevance asked to chime in whenever an opinion is taught

Both of these IMO are less valid than someone who has an opinion and obviously gives a shit from a point of view that doesn't profit either way.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ornLordMan
over a year ago

Wiltshire and London


"Shouldn't people be more concerned with

*Current ministers able to write in newspapers or present on TV channels with their own bias

*Ex ministers no longer holding any relevance asked to chime in whenever an opinion is taught

Both of these IMO are less valid than someone who has an opinion and obviously gives a shit from a point of view that doesn't profit either way.

"

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heelerMan
over a year ago

Northants

Do the Tories talk about football in HOC

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otsossieMan
over a year ago

Chesterfield


"Do the Tories talk about football in HOC"

Probably. I remember David Mellor.

Do the public talk about politics and football on social media?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ornucopiaMan
over a year ago

Bexley


"He should wind his neck in, fold he ears up and concentrate on the two things he knows a little bit about. Crisps and football. "

He can't know that much about crisps. If he did he would recommend supermarkets' own brands.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Do the Tories talk about football in HOC"

No they just talk shit everywhere else they can

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Christ is this still going

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Do the Tories talk about football in HOC"

David Cameron is a massive fan of Aston Ham !!!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *woofakind2022Couple (MM)
over a year ago

London/East Anglia

Using a swingers site to discuss old jug ears and his political views - where did it all go wrong?

This isn’t Facebook or Twitter, unsure why people use it as such.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

It's almost like the Tories knew the result of yet another investigation of their MPs was due when they criticised him then cried like five year olds when he schooled them..

Hey ho..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)


"And in this case, my understanding of the rules is slightly different to yours, that presenters are prohibited from openly criticising individual politicians, or expressing “strong political views”. "

And I specifically asked you, (which you avoided), which of the current three comments under discussion is openly critical of an individual or expreses strong political views?

Using the definition you’ve given above , it’s quite obvious to me he’s done neither.

Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ebauchedDeviantsPt2Couple
over a year ago

Cumbria


"Do the Tories talk about football in HOC

David Cameron is a massive fan of Aston Ham !!! "

Is it not West Villa?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"And in this case, my understanding of the rules is slightly different to yours, that presenters are prohibited from openly criticising individual politicians, or expressing “strong political views”.

And I specifically asked you, (which you avoided), which of the current three comments under discussion is openly critical of an individual or expreses strong political views?

Using the definition you’ve given above , it’s quite obvious to me he’s done neither.

Gbat

"

Is comparing UK government immigration policy to 1930s Germany an example of a strong political view

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"And in this case, my understanding of the rules is slightly different to yours, that presenters are prohibited from openly criticising individual politicians, or expressing “strong political views”.

And I specifically asked you, (which you avoided), which of the current three comments under discussion is openly critical of an individual or expreses strong political views?

Using the definition you’ve given above , it’s quite obvious to me he’s done neither.

Gbat

Is comparing UK government immigration policy to 1930s Germany an example of a strong political view "

Or signing a letter openly critical of the Rwanda policy.

You can't talk about this little Twitter spat without talking about the context/ history which started it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"His fame arises from his ability to hoof a ball around a field marginally better than the rest of us. How is he qualified to lecture the rest of us on topics beyond his field of expertise? You might as well get political opinions from your milkman.

I'd certainly listen to my milkman's point of view. Why would his opinion be worth less than anyone else's

Because it's not "my" opinion, or the opinion of those that share the same opinion as "me" so it automatically becomes less.

That's how the world works now, which is always hilarious because it's those that cry about not being allowed to have an opinion are the loudest and whiniest about condemning others expressing theirs. (culprits on both sides!)

Yep and try to shut them down.

How worried must people be about one man's influence? It's almost as if lots of people believe we can't think for ourselves...

Interesting that you assume that people are “worried” about his “influence”. I thought it was more about following rules that he had signed up to

You seem very invested in this, Jimmy. Do you work for the BBC?"

More likely the Tory party.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If Lineker was making negative comments about someone on the left, then the Tories and the Gammons would be cheering him on. What they don't like is being crtisised in anyway, the pathetic snowflakes. It's the reason they're trying to crack down on protests. Freedom of speech doesn't actually mean anything to them, unless they're the ones picked up on what they've said. Hypocritical snowflakes.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If Lineker was making negative comments about someone on the left, then the Tories and the Gammons would be cheering him on. What they don't like is being crtisised in anyway, the pathetic snowflakes. It's the reason they're trying to crack down on protests. Freedom of speech

doesn't actually mean anything to them, unless they're the ones picked up on what they've said. Hypocritical snowflakes. "

Ironically I'm much younger than you so not sure why you're throwing the "Gammon term" around.

I don't mind people on the left slagging off the Tories, you've got Owen Jones and the Guardian for that. But the BBC is meant to at least try to be impartial.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"And in this case, my understanding of the rules is slightly different to yours, that presenters are prohibited from openly criticising individual politicians, or expressing “strong political views”.

And I specifically asked you, (which you avoided), which of the current three comments under discussion is openly critical of an individual or expreses strong political views?

Using the definition you’ve given above , it’s quite obvious to me he’s done neither.

Gbat

Is comparing UK government immigration policy to 1930s Germany an example of a strong political view

Or signing a letter openly critical of the Rwanda policy.

You can't talk about this little Twitter spat without talking about the context/ history which started it."
the letter wasn't seen as breaching the rules tho, at least according to Shah.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)


"Is comparing UK government immigration policy to 1930s Germany an example of a strong political view "

Personally, I think that’s quite a reasonable view. Regardless, it’s already been dealt with.

I don’t understand why you keep referring back to stuff that he’s already not been sacked over.

Perhaps if I used football terms? You can’t send him off in this game because you didn’t like how he played in the last game.

I keep asking, which of the three CURRENT comments people think are in contravention of BBC policy. Any chance you’d answer that?

Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is comparing UK government immigration policy to 1930s Germany an example of a strong political view

Personally, I think that’s quite a reasonable view. Regardless, it’s already been dealt with.

I don’t understand why you keep referring back to stuff that he’s already not been sacked over.

Perhaps if I used football terms? You can’t send him off in this game because you didn’t like how he played in the last game.

I keep asking, which of the three CURRENT comments people think are in contravention of BBC policy. Any chance you’d answer that?

Gbat "

I don't have a problem with his current comments

But you're hammering on about one comment to hide over the fact he's blatantly not impartial in general.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"His fame arises from his ability to hoof a ball around a field marginally better than the rest of us. How is he qualified to lecture the rest of us on topics beyond his field of expertise? You might as well get political opinions from your milkman.

I'd certainly listen to my milkman's point of view. Why would his opinion be worth less than anyone else's

Because it's not "my" opinion, or the opinion of those that share the same opinion as "me" so it automatically becomes less.

That's how the world works now, which is always hilarious because it's those that cry about not being allowed to have an opinion are the loudest and whiniest about condemning others expressing theirs. (culprits on both sides!)

Yep and try to shut them down.

How worried must people be about one man's influence? It's almost as if lots of people believe we can't think for ourselves...

Interesting that you assume that people are “worried” about his “influence”. I thought it was more about following rules that he had signed up to

You seem very invested in this, Jimmy. Do you work for the BBC?"

No. And no, I’m not very invested in this, just offering a simple view, respectfully … unlike some (not you) who have chosen to address me with aggression and insults

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"His fame arises from his ability to hoof a ball around a field marginally better than the rest of us. How is he qualified to lecture the rest of us on topics beyond his field of expertise? You might as well get political opinions from your milkman.

I'd certainly listen to my milkman's point of view. Why would his opinion be worth less than anyone else's

Because it's not "my" opinion, or the opinion of those that share the same opinion as "me" so it automatically becomes less.

That's how the world works now, which is always hilarious because it's those that cry about not being allowed to have an opinion are the loudest and whiniest about condemning others expressing theirs. (culprits on both sides!)

Yep and try to shut them down.

How worried must people be about one man's influence? It's almost as if lots of people believe we can't think for ourselves...

Interesting that you assume that people are “worried” about his “influence”. I thought it was more about following rules that he had signed up to

You seem very invested in this, Jimmy. Do you work for the BBC?

More likely the Tory party."

No, I don’t work for the Tory party. And I’m not a member either . No idea what made you think that.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"If Lineker was making negative comments about someone on the left, then the Tories and the Gammons would be cheering him on. What they don't like is being crtisised in anyway, the pathetic snowflakes. It's the reason they're trying to crack down on protests. Freedom of speech doesn't actually mean anything to them, unless they're the ones picked up on what they've said. Hypocritical snowflakes. "

A mixed bag of cliches and abuse there! Word salad!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"If Lineker was making negative comments about someone on the left, then the Tories and the Gammons would be cheering him on. What they don't like is being crtisised in anyway, the pathetic snowflakes. It's the reason they're trying to crack down on protests. Freedom of speech

doesn't actually mean anything to them, unless they're the ones picked up on what they've said. Hypocritical snowflakes.

Ironically I'm much younger than you so not sure why you're throwing the "Gammon term" around.

I don't mind people on the left slagging off the Tories, you've got Owen Jones and the Guardian for that. But the BBC is meant to at least try to be impartial."

… and if people don’t like that idea, don’t work for the bbc!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *affeine DuskMan
over a year ago

Caerphilly

Gary Linekar and the BBC, the most controversial sex leak of 2024 coming soon!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"Is comparing UK government immigration policy to 1930s Germany an example of a strong political view

Personally, I think that’s quite a reasonable view. Regardless, it’s already been dealt with.

I don’t understand why you keep referring back to stuff that he’s already not been sacked over.

Perhaps if I used football terms? You can’t send him off in this game because you didn’t like how he played in the last game.

I keep asking, which of the three CURRENT comments people think are in contravention of BBC policy. Any chance you’d answer that?

Gbat

I don't have a problem with his current comments

But you're hammering on about one comment to hide over the fact he's blatantly not impartial in general."

Bbc bottled it over the nazi comments and now he thinks the rules don’t really exist

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otsossieMan
over a year ago

Chesterfield

Die thread, die.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames


"Gary Linekar and the BBC, the most controversial sex leak of 2024 coming soon!

"

… probably should have been in the politics board …

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ark_KnightsMan
over a year ago

london

Let’s be honest the BBC isn’t impartial and has its own rhetoric it pushes

How does it deal with the years of misconduct that are still ripe within its ranks…..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is comparing UK government immigration policy to 1930s Germany an example of a strong political view

Personally, I think that’s quite a reasonable view. Regardless, it’s already been dealt with.

I don’t understand why you keep referring back to stuff that he’s already not been sacked over.

Perhaps if I used football terms? You can’t send him off in this game because you didn’t like how he played in the last game.

I keep asking, which of the three CURRENT comments people think are in contravention of BBC policy. Any chance you’d answer that?

Gbat "

A reasonable view is it ????

It's funny then how for a man who happily compares the UK government to Nazis, he had very little to say when 1200-1300 odd Jews were slaughter on October 7th

In actual fact the whole BBC couldn't quite quite bring itself to use that word beginning with a T

I suppose seeing as you agree with Lineker you'd probably call Hamas a "militant" group wouldn't you Gbat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
back to top