Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
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 Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who knows, if the Beeb can get away with scrapping MOTD and Football Focus, they'd have just saved themselves a lot of money without needing to make people redundant. Would go a long way in their cost cutting. Silver linings in clouds and all that. "It is one if there most popular shows | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who knows, if the Beeb can get away with scrapping MOTD and Football Focus, they'd have just saved themselves a lot of money without needing to make people redundant. Would go a long way in their cost cutting. Silver linings in clouds and all that.
It is one if there most popular shows "So…. Bargain hunt, homes under the hammer, or extra rugby coverage then? 
Now… final score has gone as well!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who knows, if the Beeb can get away with scrapping MOTD and Football Focus, they'd have just saved themselves a lot of money without needing to make people redundant. Would go a long way in their cost cutting. Silver linings in clouds and all that.
It is one if there most popular shows
So…. Bargain hunt, homes under the hammer, or extra rugby coverage then?
Now… final score has gone as well!!! "Was final score on today? England vs France kicks off at 4:45pm | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who knows, if the Beeb can get away with scrapping MOTD and Football Focus, they'd have just saved themselves a lot of money without needing to make people redundant. Would go a long way in their cost cutting. Silver linings in clouds and all that.
It is one if there most popular shows
So…. Bargain hunt, homes under the hammer, or extra rugby coverage then?
Now… final score has gone as well!!!
Was final score on today? England vs France kicks off at 4:45pm"Yep… all the rugby today is on ITV… The Scotland Ireland game tomorrow is on the BBC | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who knows, if the Beeb can get away with scrapping MOTD and Football Focus, they'd have just saved themselves a lot of money without needing to make people redundant. Would go a long way in their cost cutting. Silver linings in clouds and all that.
It is one if there most popular shows
So…. Bargain hunt, homes under the hammer, or extra rugby coverage then?
Now… final score has gone as well!!!
Was final score on today? England vs France kicks off at 4:45pm
Yep… all the rugby today is on ITV…
The Scotland Ireland game tomorrow is on the BBC "My bad. Thought the England game was on BBC. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. " Yep, the BBC have fucked up | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. Yep, the BBC have fucked up " Explain how ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. Yep, the BBC have fucked up Explain how ?" Read the news | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. Yep, the BBC have fucked up Explain how ? Read the news "No I’m asking you our opinion for why/how the BBC have in your words “fuck up” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. Yep, the BBC have fucked up Explain how ? Read the news
No I’m asking you our opinion for why/how the BBC have in your words “fuck up”"Bad publicity, highlighting the fact their DG is a Tory donor and helped get Boris a £800 grand loan, overwhelming support for Gary Lineker | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. Yep, the BBC have fucked up Explain how ? Read the news
No I’m asking you our opinion for why/how the BBC have in your words “fuck up”
Bad publicity, highlighting the fact their DG is a Tory donor and helped get Boris a £800 grand loan, overwhelming support for Gary Lineker "Oh right get you now “ the Tory’s are to blame for everything part”. Got the Tshirt . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?" They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. Yep, the BBC have fucked up Explain how ? Read the news
No I’m asking you our opinion for why/how the BBC have in your words “fuck up”
Bad publicity, highlighting the fact their DG is a Tory donor and helped get Boris a £800 grand loan, overwhelming support for Gary Lineker
Oh right get you now “ the Tory’s are to blame for everything part”. Got the Tshirt . "You obviously can’t read, where did I say that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. Yep, the BBC have fucked up Explain how ? Read the news
No I’m asking you our opinion for why/how the BBC have in your words “fuck up”
Bad publicity, highlighting the fact their DG is a Tory donor and helped get Boris a £800 grand loan, overwhelming support for Gary Lineker
Oh right get you now “ the Tory’s are to blame for everything part”. Got the Tshirt . "The BBC have fucked up on this, their actions towards Gary has led to a whole 'football revolt'. Football is a massive draw for the BBC so yeah, they've fucked up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. Yep, the BBC have fucked up Explain how ? Read the news
No I’m asking you our opinion for why/how the BBC have in your words “fuck up”
Bad publicity, highlighting the fact their DG is a Tory donor and helped get Boris a £800 grand loan, overwhelming support for Gary Lineker
Oh right get you now “ the Tory’s are to blame for everything part”. Got the Tshirt .
You obviously can’t read, where did I say that "Just look at your other threads on any forum on fab. Its your common theme to every political question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Bad publicity, highlighting the fact their DG is a Tory donor and helped get Boris a £800 grand loan, overwhelming support for Gary Lineker
Oh right get you now “ the Tory’s are to blame for everything part”. Got the Tshirt . "No… what is being mentioned is that the chairman, the director general and and various members of the BBC board are somewhat implicated… thus making their claims of impartiality tenuous at best | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. Yep, the BBC have fucked up Explain how ? Read the news
No I’m asking you our opinion for why/how the BBC have in your words “fuck up”
Bad publicity, highlighting the fact their DG is a Tory donor and helped get Boris a £800 grand loan, overwhelming support for Gary Lineker
Oh right get you now “ the Tory’s are to blame for everything part”. Got the Tshirt .
You obviously can’t read, where did I say that
Just look at your other threads on any forum on fab. Its your common theme to every political question. "I'd agree with that, myself and fabtastic very rarely see eye to eye, however, try to keep this thread to this thread and not make preconceived judgements because of what he's said elsewhere. His comment was 'the BBC have fucked up' he didn't say anything about the Tories until he said the BBC DG is a Tory donor, which is true. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. Yep, the BBC have fucked up Explain how ? Read the news
No I’m asking you our opinion for why/how the BBC have in your words “fuck up”
Bad publicity, highlighting the fact their DG is a Tory donor and helped get Boris a £800 grand loan, overwhelming support for Gary Lineker
Oh right get you now “ the Tory’s are to blame for everything part”. Got the Tshirt .
You obviously can’t read, where did I say that
Just look at your other threads on any forum on fab. Its your common theme to every political question. "Try again, where did I say the Tories are to blame | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. Yep, the BBC have fucked up Explain how ? Read the news
No I’m asking you our opinion for why/how the BBC have in your words “fuck up”
Bad publicity, highlighting the fact their DG is a Tory donor and helped get Boris a £800 grand loan, overwhelming support for Gary Lineker
Oh right get you now “ the Tory’s are to blame for everything part”. Got the Tshirt .
You obviously can’t read, where did I say that
Just look at your other threads on any forum on fab. Its your common theme to every political question.
Try again, where did I say the Tories are to blame "4 days ago mate, really need to remember what you put into words. Agreed, it is easier to put everything in a box and label it bad Tory. " The tories have been in charge for the last 13 years, why is this labours fault? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. Yep, the BBC have fucked up Explain how ? Read the news
No I’m asking you our opinion for why/how the BBC have in your words “fuck up”
Bad publicity, highlighting the fact their DG is a Tory donor and helped get Boris a £800 grand loan, overwhelming support for Gary Lineker
Oh right get you now “ the Tory’s are to blame for everything part”. Got the Tshirt .
You obviously can’t read, where did I say that
Just look at your other threads on any forum on fab. Its your common theme to every political question.
I'd agree with that, myself and fabtastic very rarely see eye to eye, however, try to keep this thread to this thread and not make preconceived judgements because of what he's said elsewhere.
His comment was 'the BBC have fucked up' he didn't say anything about the Tories until he said the BBC DG is a Tory donor, which is true."And do you do the administration for fab political threads now? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?" you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. Yep, the BBC have fucked up Explain how ? Read the news
No I’m asking you our opinion for why/how the BBC have in your words “fuck up”
Bad publicity, highlighting the fact their DG is a Tory donor and helped get Boris a £800 grand loan, overwhelming support for Gary Lineker
Oh right get you now “ the Tory’s are to blame for everything part”. Got the Tshirt .
You obviously can’t read, where did I say that
Just look at your other threads on any forum on fab. Its your common theme to every political question.
I'd agree with that, myself and fabtastic very rarely see eye to eye, however, try to keep this thread to this thread and not make preconceived judgements because of what he's said elsewhere.
His comment was 'the BBC have fucked up' he didn't say anything about the Tories until he said the BBC DG is a Tory donor, which is true.
And do you do the administration for fab political threads now?"
And I thought my Mrs was Feisty.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. " At end of the day Gary Lineker is employed by the BBC and they have the right to withdraw his employment if he Lineker has breech their policies and procedures. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. Yep, the BBC have fucked up Explain how ? Read the news
No I’m asking you our opinion for why/how the BBC have in your words “fuck up”
Bad publicity, highlighting the fact their DG is a Tory donor and helped get Boris a £800 grand loan, overwhelming support for Gary Lineker
Oh right get you now “ the Tory’s are to blame for everything part”. Got the Tshirt .
You obviously can’t read, where did I say that
Just look at your other threads on any forum on fab. Its your common theme to every political question.
Try again, where did I say the Tories are to blame
4 days ago mate, really need to remember what you put into words.
Agreed, it is easier to put everything in a box and label it bad Tory. "
The tories have been in charge for the last 13 years, why is this labours fault?"Try again, this thread was started today, not 4 days ago, where did I say that the tories are to blame ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. Yep, the BBC have fucked up Explain how ? Read the news
No I’m asking you our opinion for why/how the BBC have in your words “fuck up”
Bad publicity, highlighting the fact their DG is a Tory donor and helped get Boris a £800 grand loan, overwhelming support for Gary Lineker
Oh right get you now “ the Tory’s are to blame for everything part”. Got the Tshirt . "In general with pretty much every area of public life they have yes, enjoy the t-shirt.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. Yep, the BBC have fucked up Explain how ? Read the news
No I’m asking you our opinion for why/how the BBC have in your words “fuck up”
Bad publicity, highlighting the fact their DG is a Tory donor and helped get Boris a £800 grand loan, overwhelming support for Gary Lineker
Oh right get you now “ the Tory’s are to blame for everything part”. Got the Tshirt .
You obviously can’t read, where did I say that
Just look at your other threads on any forum on fab. Its your common theme to every political question.
Try again, where did I say the Tories are to blame
4 days ago mate, really need to remember what you put into words.
Agreed, it is easier to put everything in a box and label it bad Tory. "
The tories have been in charge for the last 13 years, why is this labours fault?
Try again, this thread was started today, not 4 days ago, where did I say that the tories are to blame ? "Think your statement above says it all mate, jog on and buy a shirt please.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is amazing Strisand effect Not many people would have known about linekers tweet had papers not publicised it. Now it's becoming a front page story that will run. And will start to bring to question a) bbc social media policy b) the influence others have on the BBC. It will probably also act ad a reminder of the conflict at the top of the BBC too. Yep, the BBC have fucked up Explain how ? Read the news
No I’m asking you our opinion for why/how the BBC have in your words “fuck up”
Bad publicity, highlighting the fact their DG is a Tory donor and helped get Boris a £800 grand loan, overwhelming support for Gary Lineker
Oh right get you now “ the Tory’s are to blame for everything part”. Got the Tshirt .
In general with pretty much every area of public life they have yes, enjoy the t-shirt.." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. At end of the day Gary Lineker is employed by the BBC and they have the right to withdraw his employment if he Lineker has breech their policies and procedures. " I've said before I believe they have this right. However it's their approach that stinks. They are reacting to effectively lobbying. The very antithesis of impartially. If I were an employee of the BBC that's my biggest worry. It should also be something we care about if we believe the BBC adds value via impartiality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences." The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved?" No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. " From various news articles: 'impartiality must be “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. It adds that BBC output must always “scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account” with both consistency and due impartiality' '"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."' '“clearly identified with the BBC” are expected to behave appropriately and “in ways that are consistent with the BBC’s editorial values and policies”.' So, what impartiality is appropriate to Gary Linker's output? All pundits should be sacked then. “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.” The only political thing in this comment is an opinion on the cruelty of the policy. He has been told to remove himself on this basis. Now we see the consequences. It would seem that many people are unable to see the connection between someone involved in football commenting on politics and the political impartiality of a news organisation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. " Have they argued that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To be honest I don't like Lineker, I don't watch MOTD live because I can't stand him. I wait till it's on the iplayer then fast forward the bits he is on. It makes MOTD a lot better. The only time I could watch him was the Walkers crips Ad's (I like Walkers crips) his finest and only moment.! If he doesn't return to MOTD it's no great loss and the program will just carry on. I bet there are plenty of ex football players waiting for a phone call to get the chance to do some presenting. " Except,it seems, that they have not taken the opportunity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To be honest I don't like Lineker, I don't watch MOTD live because I can't stand him. I wait till it's on the iplayer then fast forward the bits he is on. It makes MOTD a lot better. The only time I could watch him was the Walkers crips Ad's (I like Walkers crips) his finest and only moment.! If he doesn't return to MOTD it's no great loss and the program will just carry on. I bet there are plenty of ex football players waiting for a phone call to get the chance to do some presenting. Except,it seems, that they have not taken the opportunity." There is always next week. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that?" The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. " Their own guidelines in relation to public statements clearly state that it is less important if a presenter is working within sports and they will not be held to the same standards of news and current affairs . They are in effect going over the top with their own rules. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To be honest I don't like Lineker, I don't watch MOTD live because I can't stand him. I wait till it's on the iplayer then fast forward the bits he is on. It makes MOTD a lot better. The only time I could watch him was the Walkers crips Ad's (I like Walkers crips) his finest and only moment.! If he doesn't return to MOTD it's no great loss and the program will just carry on. I bet there are plenty of ex football players waiting for a phone call to get the chance to do some presenting. " Do you like Ian Wright, or Alan Shearer? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. " Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"?" Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. " What did I claim? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Their own guidelines in relation to public statements clearly state that it is less important if a presenter is working within sports and they will not be held to the same standards of news and current affairs . They are in effect going over the top with their own rules. " Going over the top maybe but that's what they're saying. People should know that they've asked Gary to step aside until they can reach an agreement on his social media use. This isn't some kind of blackout. Clearly we don't know the details but from what we do know, negotiations have been taking place, and it seems they can't agree | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim?" You don't remember? It was only a few posts back  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. At end of the day Gary Lineker is employed by the BBC and they have the right to withdraw his employment if he Lineker has breech their policies and procedures. " Linekers lawyers could have a field day with this. If this ends up in legal action, the BBCs different handling of Garry Linekers comments and those of other wouldn't bode well for the BBC. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. At end of the day Gary Lineker is employed by the BBC and they have the right to withdraw his employment if he Lineker has breech their policies and procedures. Linekers lawyers could have a field day with this. If this ends up in legal action, the BBCs different handling of Garry Linekers comments and those of other wouldn't bode well for the BBC." I don’t think it will come to that , he will be welcomed back, he won’t have to apologise and he will have a contract that he can tweet what he wants (within reason) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back "I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued? What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. From various news articles: 'impartiality must be “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. It adds that BBC output must always “scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account” with both consistency and due impartiality' '"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."' '“clearly identified with the BBC” are expected to behave appropriately and “in ways that are consistent with the BBC’s editorial values and policies”.' So, what impartiality is appropriate to Gary Linker's output? All pundits should be sacked then. “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.” The only political thing in this comment is an opinion on the cruelty of the policy. He has been told to remove himself on this basis. Now we see the consequences. It would seem that many people are unable to see the connection between someone involved in football commenting on politics and the political impartiality of a news organisation." u can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being saved because his tweet mean he can give impartial about sports. I don't agree with the BBC decision. But I've not read anything that it's because it's compromised his ability to do his job. But (as the argument goes) it's compromised the BBC's impartiality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. From various news articles: 'impartiality must be “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. It adds that BBC output must always “scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account” with both consistency and due impartiality' '"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."' '“clearly identified with the BBC” are expected to behave appropriately and “in ways that are consistent with the BBC’s editorial values and policies”.' So, what impartiality is appropriate to Gary Linker's output? All pundits should be sacked then. “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.” The only political thing in this comment is an opinion on the cruelty of the policy. He has been told to remove himself on this basis. Now we see the consequences. It would seem that many people are unable to see the connection between someone involved in football commenting on politics and the political impartiality of a news organisation.u can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being saved because his tweet mean he can give impartial about sports. I don't agree with the BBC decision. But I've not read anything that it's because it's compromised his ability to do his job. But (as the argument goes) it's compromised the BBC's impartiality. " I didn't say that he should be "saved". Just that the appropriate impartiality that he should exercise is about football. If he has broken that then he, and as you say all other, football pundits should apparently have been removed long ago. I also fail to see how a football commentator's political views affect the BBC ability to deliver impartial news reporting. Do you have an explanation? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute."'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines' If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. From various news articles: 'impartiality must be “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. It adds that BBC output must always “scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account” with both consistency and due impartiality' '"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."' '“clearly identified with the BBC” are expected to behave appropriately and “in ways that are consistent with the BBC’s editorial values and policies”.' So, what impartiality is appropriate to Gary Linker's output? All pundits should be sacked then. “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.” The only political thing in this comment is an opinion on the cruelty of the policy. He has been told to remove himself on this basis. Now we see the consequences. It would seem that many people are unable to see the connection between someone involved in football commenting on politics and the political impartiality of a news organisation.u can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being saved because his tweet mean he can give impartial about sports. I don't agree with the BBC decision. But I've not read anything that it's because it's compromised his ability to do his job. But (as the argument goes) it's compromised the BBC's impartiality. I didn't say that he should be "saved". Just that the appropriate impartiality that he should exercise is about football. If he has broken that then he, and as you say all other, football pundits should apparently have been removed long ago. I also fail to see how a football commentator's political views affect the BBC ability to deliver impartial news reporting. Do you have an explanation?" So you don't care what position he holds within the organisation? Plenty see him as 'the face of the BBC' according to a BBC radio4 presenter. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to."That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous. Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious? Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. From various news articles: 'impartiality must be “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. It adds that BBC output must always “scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account” with both consistency and due impartiality' '"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."' '“clearly identified with the BBC” are expected to behave appropriately and “in ways that are consistent with the BBC’s editorial values and policies”.' So, what impartiality is appropriate to Gary Linker's output? All pundits should be sacked then. “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.” The only political thing in this comment is an opinion on the cruelty of the policy. He has been told to remove himself on this basis. Now we see the consequences. It would seem that many people are unable to see the connection between someone involved in football commenting on politics and the political impartiality of a news organisation.u can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being saved because his tweet mean he can give impartial about sports. I don't agree with the BBC decision. But I've not read anything that it's because it's compromised his ability to do his job. But (as the argument goes) it's compromised the BBC's impartiality. I didn't say that he should be "saved". Just that the appropriate impartiality that he should exercise is about football. If he has broken that then he, and as you say all other, football pundits should apparently have been removed long ago. I also fail to see how a football commentator's political views affect the BBC ability to deliver impartial news reporting. Do you have an explanation?" typo. And a key one. Sacked* I've rewritten it as it was terribly worded. "I can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being sacked because his tweet mean he cant be impartial about sports." To repeat. I disagree with the decision. But the way I have read a few if your comments is that he was sacked because the bbc or someone has said he couldn't be impartial in sports because of the tweets. That is the only point I am seeking to clarify. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you."You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing. Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. From various news articles: 'impartiality must be “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. It adds that BBC output must always “scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account” with both consistency and due impartiality' '"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."' '“clearly identified with the BBC” are expected to behave appropriately and “in ways that are consistent with the BBC’s editorial values and policies”.' So, what impartiality is appropriate to Gary Linker's output? All pundits should be sacked then. “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.” The only political thing in this comment is an opinion on the cruelty of the policy. He has been told to remove himself on this basis. Now we see the consequences. It would seem that many people are unable to see the connection between someone involved in football commenting on politics and the political impartiality of a news organisation.u can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being saved because his tweet mean he can give impartial about sports. I don't agree with the BBC decision. But I've not read anything that it's because it's compromised his ability to do his job. But (as the argument goes) it's compromised the BBC's impartiality. I didn't say that he should be "saved". Just that the appropriate impartiality that he should exercise is about football. If he has broken that then he, and as you say all other, football pundits should apparently have been removed long ago. I also fail to see how a football commentator's political views affect the BBC ability to deliver impartial news reporting. Do you have an explanation? So you don't care what position he holds within the organisation? Plenty see him as 'the face of the BBC' according to a BBC radio4 presenter." "Plenty" see him as the face of the BBC? Is there any data on this whatsoever? So Gary Lineker's political opinion is seen as the opinion of BBC News? Really? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. From various news articles: 'impartiality must be “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. It adds that BBC output must always “scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account” with both consistency and due impartiality' '"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."' '“clearly identified with the BBC” are expected to behave appropriately and “in ways that are consistent with the BBC’s editorial values and policies”.' So, what impartiality is appropriate to Gary Linker's output? All pundits should be sacked then. “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.” The only political thing in this comment is an opinion on the cruelty of the policy. He has been told to remove himself on this basis. Now we see the consequences. It would seem that many people are unable to see the connection between someone involved in football commenting on politics and the political impartiality of a news organisation.u can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being saved because his tweet mean he can give impartial about sports. I don't agree with the BBC decision. But I've not read anything that it's because it's compromised his ability to do his job. But (as the argument goes) it's compromised the BBC's impartiality. I didn't say that he should be "saved". Just that the appropriate impartiality that he should exercise is about football. If he has broken that then he, and as you say all other, football pundits should apparently have been removed long ago. I also fail to see how a football commentator's political views affect the BBC ability to deliver impartial news reporting. Do you have an explanation? So you don't care what position he holds within the organisation? Plenty see him as 'the face of the BBC' according to a BBC radio4 presenter. "Plenty" see him as the face of the BBC? Is there any data on this whatsoever? So Gary Lineker's political opinion is seen as the opinion of BBC News? Really?" Did you miss the bit where I said 'according to a radio4 presenter' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. From various news articles: 'impartiality must be “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. It adds that BBC output must always “scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account” with both consistency and due impartiality' '"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."' '“clearly identified with the BBC” are expected to behave appropriately and “in ways that are consistent with the BBC’s editorial values and policies”.' So, what impartiality is appropriate to Gary Linker's output? All pundits should be sacked then. “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.” The only political thing in this comment is an opinion on the cruelty of the policy. He has been told to remove himself on this basis. Now we see the consequences. It would seem that many people are unable to see the connection between someone involved in football commenting on politics and the political impartiality of a news organisation.u can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being saved because his tweet mean he can give impartial about sports. I don't agree with the BBC decision. But I've not read anything that it's because it's compromised his ability to do his job. But (as the argument goes) it's compromised the BBC's impartiality. I didn't say that he should be "saved". Just that the appropriate impartiality that he should exercise is about football. If he has broken that then he, and as you say all other, football pundits should apparently have been removed long ago. I also fail to see how a football commentator's political views affect the BBC ability to deliver impartial news reporting. Do you have an explanation?typo. And a key one. Sacked* I've rewritten it as it was terribly worded. "I can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being sacked because his tweet mean he cant be impartial about sports." To repeat. I disagree with the decision. But the way I have read a few if your comments is that he was sacked because the bbc or someone has said he couldn't be impartial in sports because of the tweets. That is the only point I am seeking to clarify. " No. My point was that his area of expertise is football. Consequently that is what he must be impartial about. If he is personally "biased" in his political views that does not affect the impartiality pertinent to his job. His political bias also does not affect the impartiality of BBC News output which has nothing to do with him. Consequently I'm searching for reasons to how BBC impartiality has been effected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. From various news articles: 'impartiality must be “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. It adds that BBC output must always “scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account” with both consistency and due impartiality' '"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."' '“clearly identified with the BBC” are expected to behave appropriately and “in ways that are consistent with the BBC’s editorial values and policies”.' So, what impartiality is appropriate to Gary Linker's output? All pundits should be sacked then. “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.” The only political thing in this comment is an opinion on the cruelty of the policy. He has been told to remove himself on this basis. Now we see the consequences. It would seem that many people are unable to see the connection between someone involved in football commenting on politics and the political impartiality of a news organisation.u can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being saved because his tweet mean he can give impartial about sports. I don't agree with the BBC decision. But I've not read anything that it's because it's compromised his ability to do his job. But (as the argument goes) it's compromised the BBC's impartiality. I didn't say that he should be "saved". Just that the appropriate impartiality that he should exercise is about football. If he has broken that then he, and as you say all other, football pundits should apparently have been removed long ago. I also fail to see how a football commentator's political views affect the BBC ability to deliver impartial news reporting. Do you have an explanation? So you don't care what position he holds within the organisation? Plenty see him as 'the face of the BBC' according to a BBC radio4 presenter. "Plenty" see him as the face of the BBC? Is there any data on this whatsoever? So Gary Lineker's political opinion is seen as the opinion of BBC News? Really? Did you miss the bit where I said 'according to a radio4 presenter' " So what does the opinion of one person tell us about if he is actually viewed in that way or not? What point are you making? Does his opinion affect public perception of The impartiality of BBC News reporting or not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. From various news articles: 'impartiality must be “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. It adds that BBC output must always “scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account” with both consistency and due impartiality' '"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."' '“clearly identified with the BBC” are expected to behave appropriately and “in ways that are consistent with the BBC’s editorial values and policies”.' So, what impartiality is appropriate to Gary Linker's output? All pundits should be sacked then. “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.” The only political thing in this comment is an opinion on the cruelty of the policy. He has been told to remove himself on this basis. Now we see the consequences. It would seem that many people are unable to see the connection between someone involved in football commenting on politics and the political impartiality of a news organisation.u can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being saved because his tweet mean he can give impartial about sports. I don't agree with the BBC decision. But I've not read anything that it's because it's compromised his ability to do his job. But (as the argument goes) it's compromised the BBC's impartiality. I didn't say that he should be "saved". Just that the appropriate impartiality that he should exercise is about football. If he has broken that then he, and as you say all other, football pundits should apparently have been removed long ago. I also fail to see how a football commentator's political views affect the BBC ability to deliver impartial news reporting. Do you have an explanation? So you don't care what position he holds within the organisation? Plenty see him as 'the face of the BBC' according to a BBC radio4 presenter. "Plenty" see him as the face of the BBC? Is there any data on this whatsoever? So Gary Lineker's political opinion is seen as the opinion of BBC News? Really? Did you miss the bit where I said 'according to a radio4 presenter' So what does the opinion of one person tell us about if he is actually viewed in that way or not? What point are you making? Does his opinion affect public perception of The impartiality of BBC News reporting or not?" I haven't done a poll but I'd agree with said presenter. The point I'm making is he is very very known for being MOTD presenter, ergo BBC presenter. You do actually know what my point is though don't you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?"You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated. Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?"Did I say that? Can you show me where? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences." Why didn’t Andrew Neil ever illicit the same response snd consequences from the BBC? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. Why didn’t Andrew Neil ever illicit the same response snd consequences from the BBC?" How can you expect me to answer that? I clearly have no idea. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. From various news articles: 'impartiality must be “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. It adds that BBC output must always “scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account” with both consistency and due impartiality' '"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."' '“clearly identified with the BBC” are expected to behave appropriately and “in ways that are consistent with the BBC’s editorial values and policies”.' So, what impartiality is appropriate to Gary Linker's output? All pundits should be sacked then. “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.” The only political thing in this comment is an opinion on the cruelty of the policy. He has been told to remove himself on this basis. Now we see the consequences. It would seem that many people are unable to see the connection between someone involved in football commenting on politics and the political impartiality of a news organisation.u can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being saved because his tweet mean he can give impartial about sports. I don't agree with the BBC decision. But I've not read anything that it's because it's compromised his ability to do his job. But (as the argument goes) it's compromised the BBC's impartiality. I didn't say that he should be "saved". Just that the appropriate impartiality that he should exercise is about football. If he has broken that then he, and as you say all other, football pundits should apparently have been removed long ago. I also fail to see how a football commentator's political views affect the BBC ability to deliver impartial news reporting. Do you have an explanation?typo. And a key one. Sacked* I've rewritten it as it was terribly worded. "I can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being sacked because his tweet mean he cant be impartial about sports." To repeat. I disagree with the decision. But the way I have read a few if your comments is that he was sacked because the bbc or someone has said he couldn't be impartial in sports because of the tweets. That is the only point I am seeking to clarify. No. My point was that his area of expertise is football. Consequently that is what he must be impartial about. If he is personally "biased" in his political views that does not affect the impartiality pertinent to his job. His political bias also does not affect the impartiality of BBC News output which has nothing to do with him. Consequently I'm searching for reasons to how BBC impartiality has been effected." aha. I suspect the BBC will argue it's because of his profile on the BBC. They will argue as the highest paid presenter he has a greater duty of care not to take sides. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. From various news articles: 'impartiality must be “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. It adds that BBC output must always “scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account” with both consistency and due impartiality' '"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."' '“clearly identified with the BBC” are expected to behave appropriately and “in ways that are consistent with the BBC’s editorial values and policies”.' So, what impartiality is appropriate to Gary Linker's output? All pundits should be sacked then. “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.” The only political thing in this comment is an opinion on the cruelty of the policy. He has been told to remove himself on this basis. Now we see the consequences. It would seem that many people are unable to see the connection between someone involved in football commenting on politics and the political impartiality of a news organisation.u can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being saved because his tweet mean he can give impartial about sports. I don't agree with the BBC decision. But I've not read anything that it's because it's compromised his ability to do his job. But (as the argument goes) it's compromised the BBC's impartiality. I didn't say that he should be "saved". Just that the appropriate impartiality that he should exercise is about football. If he has broken that then he, and as you say all other, football pundits should apparently have been removed long ago. I also fail to see how a football commentator's political views affect the BBC ability to deliver impartial news reporting. Do you have an explanation? So you don't care what position he holds within the organisation? Plenty see him as 'the face of the BBC' according to a BBC radio4 presenter. "Plenty" see him as the face of the BBC? Is there any data on this whatsoever? So Gary Lineker's political opinion is seen as the opinion of BBC News? Really? Did you miss the bit where I said 'according to a radio4 presenter' So what does the opinion of one person tell us about if he is actually viewed in that way or not? What point are you making? Does his opinion affect public perception of The impartiality of BBC News reporting or not? I haven't done a poll but I'd agree with said presenter. The point I'm making is he is very very known for being MOTD presenter, ergo BBC presenter. You do actually know what my point is though don't you." So you believe that lots of people think that Gary Lineker's views represent those of the BBC? No, I do not actually know what your point is. My guess is that because Lineker is a well known BBC football presenter his political views somehow affect people's perceptions of how BBC News is reported. You get very annoyed if I make any assumptions, so please be explicit to avoid confusion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. Why didn’t Andrew Neil ever illicit the same response snd consequences from the BBC? How can you expect me to answer that? I clearly have no idea." It was really for the whole audience of this thread. Andrew Neil has free rein to post his right wing views via both his social media platforms and as Chairman of The Spectator. Apparently that was fine because he was freelance (a freelance POLITICAL journalist/commentator) but it isn’t fine for a freelance sports commentator? Double standards that I suspect have nothing to do with people like Sharp or Gibb being in the senior roles at the BBC | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?"You have said that they are the the same thing. "'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute." I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. From various news articles: 'impartiality must be “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. It adds that BBC output must always “scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account” with both consistency and due impartiality' '"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."' '“clearly identified with the BBC” are expected to behave appropriately and “in ways that are consistent with the BBC’s editorial values and policies”.' So, what impartiality is appropriate to Gary Linker's output? All pundits should be sacked then. “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.” The only political thing in this comment is an opinion on the cruelty of the policy. He has been told to remove himself on this basis. Now we see the consequences. It would seem that many people are unable to see the connection between someone involved in football commenting on politics and the political impartiality of a news organisation.u can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being saved because his tweet mean he can give impartial about sports. I don't agree with the BBC decision. But I've not read anything that it's because it's compromised his ability to do his job. But (as the argument goes) it's compromised the BBC's impartiality. I didn't say that he should be "saved". Just that the appropriate impartiality that he should exercise is about football. If he has broken that then he, and as you say all other, football pundits should apparently have been removed long ago. I also fail to see how a football commentator's political views affect the BBC ability to deliver impartial news reporting. Do you have an explanation? So you don't care what position he holds within the organisation? Plenty see him as 'the face of the BBC' according to a BBC radio4 presenter. "Plenty" see him as the face of the BBC? Is there any data on this whatsoever? So Gary Lineker's political opinion is seen as the opinion of BBC News? Really? Did you miss the bit where I said 'according to a radio4 presenter' So what does the opinion of one person tell us about if he is actually viewed in that way or not? What point are you making? Does his opinion affect public perception of The impartiality of BBC News reporting or not? I haven't done a poll but I'd agree with said presenter. The point I'm making is he is very very known for being MOTD presenter, ergo BBC presenter. You do actually know what my point is though don't you. So you believe that lots of people think that Gary Lineker's views represent those of the BBC? No, I do not actually know what your point is. My guess is that because Lineker is a well known BBC football presenter his political views somehow affect people's perceptions of how BBC News is reported. You get very annoyed if I make any assumptions, so please be explicit to avoid confusion." Not sure how I can be more explicit. Gary is a very very well known BBC presenter, the field doesn't actually matter. He is their highest paid presenter, something widely known. People see him as the face of the BBC because of this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not."The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same' Make your mind up | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. Why didn’t Andrew Neil ever illicit the same response snd consequences from the BBC? How can you expect me to answer that? I clearly have no idea. It was really for the whole audience of this thread. Andrew Neil has free rein to post his right wing views via both his social media platforms and as Chairman of The Spectator. Apparently that was fine because he was freelance (a freelance POLITICAL journalist/commentator) but it isn’t fine for a freelance sports commentator? Double standards that I suspect have nothing to do with people like Sharp or Gibb being in the senior roles at the BBC "I don't dispute its double standards. Just wasn't sure how I was supposed to answer as to why he never did illicit the same response. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. From various news articles: 'impartiality must be “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. It adds that BBC output must always “scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account” with both consistency and due impartiality' '"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."' '“clearly identified with the BBC” are expected to behave appropriately and “in ways that are consistent with the BBC’s editorial values and policies”.' So, what impartiality is appropriate to Gary Linker's output? All pundits should be sacked then. “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.” The only political thing in this comment is an opinion on the cruelty of the policy. He has been told to remove himself on this basis. Now we see the consequences. It would seem that many people are unable to see the connection between someone involved in football commenting on politics and the political impartiality of a news organisation.u can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being saved because his tweet mean he can give impartial about sports. I don't agree with the BBC decision. But I've not read anything that it's because it's compromised his ability to do his job. But (as the argument goes) it's compromised the BBC's impartiality. I didn't say that he should be "saved". Just that the appropriate impartiality that he should exercise is about football. If he has broken that then he, and as you say all other, football pundits should apparently have been removed long ago. I also fail to see how a football commentator's political views affect the BBC ability to deliver impartial news reporting. Do you have an explanation?typo. And a key one. Sacked* I've rewritten it as it was terribly worded. "I can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being sacked because his tweet mean he cant be impartial about sports." To repeat. I disagree with the decision. But the way I have read a few if your comments is that he was sacked because the bbc or someone has said he couldn't be impartial in sports because of the tweets. That is the only point I am seeking to clarify. No. My point was that his area of expertise is football. Consequently that is what he must be impartial about. If he is personally "biased" in his political views that does not affect the impartiality pertinent to his job. His political bias also does not affect the impartiality of BBC News output which has nothing to do with him. Consequently I'm searching for reasons to how BBC impartiality has been effected.aha. I suspect the BBC will argue it's because of his profile on the BBC. They will argue as the highest paid presenter he has a greater duty of care not to take sides. " Why would he need to take more "care" over his political opinions as a football presenter? They are not in any way abusive or unpleasant or illegal. That's what I don't actually understand. How does that affect the perception of BBC News coverage? Why does he need to take more "care" over a part of the network that he does not influence in any way? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport?you've mentioned sport impartiality a few times. has that been put forward as a reason ? I thought it was no bbc employer (Inc freelancers) should show political bias. If commentators had to be sporting unbiased they'd have to sack every one after any WC or euros. From various news articles: 'impartiality must be “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. It adds that BBC output must always “scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account” with both consistency and due impartiality' '"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."' '“clearly identified with the BBC” are expected to behave appropriately and “in ways that are consistent with the BBC’s editorial values and policies”.' So, what impartiality is appropriate to Gary Linker's output? All pundits should be sacked then. “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.” The only political thing in this comment is an opinion on the cruelty of the policy. He has been told to remove himself on this basis. Now we see the consequences. It would seem that many people are unable to see the connection between someone involved in football commenting on politics and the political impartiality of a news organisation.u can't see how anything you have quoted lends itself to linekar being saved because his tweet mean he can give impartial about sports. I don't agree with the BBC decision. But I've not read anything that it's because it's compromised his ability to do his job. But (as the argument goes) it's compromised the BBC's impartiality. I didn't say that he should be "saved". Just that the appropriate impartiality that he should exercise is about football. If he has broken that then he, and as you say all other, football pundits should apparently have been removed long ago. I also fail to see how a football commentator's political views affect the BBC ability to deliver impartial news reporting. Do you have an explanation? So you don't care what position he holds within the organisation? Plenty see him as 'the face of the BBC' according to a BBC radio4 presenter. "Plenty" see him as the face of the BBC? Is there any data on this whatsoever? So Gary Lineker's political opinion is seen as the opinion of BBC News? Really? Did you miss the bit where I said 'according to a radio4 presenter' So what does the opinion of one person tell us about if he is actually viewed in that way or not? What point are you making? Does his opinion affect public perception of The impartiality of BBC News reporting or not? I haven't done a poll but I'd agree with said presenter. The point I'm making is he is very very known for being MOTD presenter, ergo BBC presenter. You do actually know what my point is though don't you. So you believe that lots of people think that Gary Lineker's views represent those of the BBC? No, I do not actually know what your point is. My guess is that because Lineker is a well known BBC football presenter his political views somehow affect people's perceptions of how BBC News is reported. You get very annoyed if I make any assumptions, so please be explicit to avoid confusion. Not sure how I can be more explicit. Gary is a very very well known BBC presenter, the field doesn't actually matter. He is their highest paid presenter, something widely known. People see him as the face of the BBC because of this." I would be very surprised if "people" believe that Gary Lineker influences the way that the BBC reports on news and politics. Do you think that he does? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not.
The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same'
Make your mind up "That is why I am confused. You have said both things. "Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly" Also: "'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute." You can resolve that however you wish. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not.
The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same'
Make your mind up
That is why I am confused.
You have said both things.
"Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"?
Not exactly"
Also:
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
You can resolve that however you wish."What are you talking about? I made the first statement, subsequently saying they didn't say those words 'exactly' I then stated they are the same thing to me. I didn't at any point say they are not exactly the same. Learn to read. Honestly, these exchanges would be much more pleasant if you did that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why would he need to take more "care" over his political opinions as a football presenter? They are not in any way abusive or unpleasant or illegal. That's what I don't actually understand. How does that affect the perception of BBC News coverage? Why does he need to take more "care" over a part of the network that he does not influence in any way?" It's not because he's a football commentator. It's because he is THE highest-paid BBC presenter (be it fulltime or freelance), and the face of BBC's flagship MOTD show. Football is bigger than news. What Gary Lineker says as a football commentator reaches MORE people than anything ANYONE in BBC News or even the BBC Chairman Richard Sharp might say. Like it or not, Lineker IS the face of the BBC alongside Sir David Attenborough. This is why what he said on his own Twitter account in his own personal capacity CANNOT be seen as commensurate with the BBC portraying itself as an impartial organisation. That is why his comments have drawn such opprobrium from the Tory government and absolutely given them a stick to smash the BBC with accusations of anti-government bias (whether justified or otherwise). I'll borrow a quote from The Patriot which illustrates my point best. When Horatio Gates asked Benjamin Martin (the main character played by Mel Gibson) about his "principles" as an American patriot supporting the reasons for revolution, Benjamin replies with this: "I'm a parent, I haven't got the luxury of principles". Gary Lineker hasn't got the luxury of principles as the de-facto face of the BBC in society and popular culture owing to his status as MOTD presenter and the highest-paid presenter of the BBC. He can't afford to pretend he can enjoy his own freedom of speech and opinion to be openly broadcast or said in public without it reflecting directly on the BBC. Most of the public won't care that he's not a BBC employee, that he's freelance and a hired gun of a football pundit for any TV network that can afford to hire him. All they will see is the face of Match Of The Day, a flagship BBC programme and arguably one of the last that still enjoys substantial societal attention across political lines come out not only in direct opposition to a proposed government policy bill, but in dogwhistling language alluding to Nazi Germany (because come on now, you talk about 1930s Germany, do you think of Weimar Germany or Hitler and the Nazis rising to absolute power with the 1933 Enabling Act?). Some might say "well words mean something, words can lead to worse", and use the fact that Suella Braverman was criticised by Holocaust survivors for her words regarding refugees arriving illegally in the UK by small boats across the Channel to legitimise Gary Lineker's tweet. But the simple fact is the worst words coming out of the Tory Party regarding refugees and illegal migration into the UK, or any policy that can be enacted by this Tory government in the final death throes of its term of office, is NOTHING compared to the very concrete and real Fortress Europe built and manned by the EU and France in particular when we talk about small boats crossing the Channel. Yet we don't see Gary Lineker saying anything about how refugees are illegally entering by sea into the UK because they're physically driven away from any hope of safe haven in France (just Google about the Calais "Jungle" as a good example), or about how France is happy to take millions of pounds from the British government supposedly to police its own borders properly and take care of refugees accordingly. Being impartial means laying blame in the right places. The Tories might have failed to get to grips with managing and regulating the influx of refugees entering the UK, but they certainly aren't the ones throwing their doors open to call them all in no holds barred. Just because they want to further dissuade such illegal and unsafe Channel crossings now with their new Bill, suddenly they're the bad guys for turning refugees arriving illegally away? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not.
The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same'
Make your mind up
That is why I am confused.
You have said both things.
"Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"?
Not exactly"
Also:
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
You can resolve that however you wish.
What are you talking about?
I made the first statement, subsequently saying they didn't say those words 'exactly'
I then stated they are the same thing to me.
I didn't at any point say they are not exactly the same. Learn to read. Honestly, these exchanges would be much more pleasant if you did that.
"Right. So it is not possible to breach guidelines without bringing the organisation into disrepute. As I said, quite a stretch from my perspective. I wonder why they carefully used different words with different meanings to express what they really meant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why would he need to take more "care" over his political opinions as a football presenter? They are not in any way abusive or unpleasant or illegal. That's what I don't actually understand. How does that affect the perception of BBC News coverage? Why does he need to take more "care" over a part of the network that he does not influence in any way? It's not because he's a football commentator. It's because he is THE highest-paid BBC presenter (be it fulltime or freelance), and the face of BBC's flagship MOTD show. Football is bigger than news. What Gary Lineker says as a football commentator reaches MORE people than anything ANYONE in BBC News or even the BBC Chairman Richard Sharp might say. Like it or not, Lineker IS the face of the BBC alongside Sir David Attenborough. This is why what he said on his own Twitter account in his own personal capacity CANNOT be seen as commensurate with the BBC portraying itself as an impartial organisation. That is why his comments have drawn such opprobrium from the Tory government and absolutely given them a stick to smash the BBC with accusations of anti-government bias (whether justified or otherwise). I'll borrow a quote from The Patriot which illustrates my point best. When Horatio Gates asked Benjamin Martin (the main character played by Mel Gibson) about his "principles" as an American patriot supporting the reasons for revolution, Benjamin replies with this: "I'm a parent, I haven't got the luxury of principles". Gary Lineker hasn't got the luxury of principles as the de-facto face of the BBC in society and popular culture owing to his status as MOTD presenter and the highest-paid presenter of the BBC. He can't afford to pretend he can enjoy his own freedom of speech and opinion to be openly broadcast or said in public without it reflecting directly on the BBC. Most of the public won't care that he's not a BBC employee, that he's freelance and a hired gun of a football pundit for any TV network that can afford to hire him. All they will see is the face of Match Of The Day, a flagship BBC programme and arguably one of the last that still enjoys substantial societal attention across political lines come out not only in direct opposition to a proposed government policy bill, but in dogwhistling language alluding to Nazi Germany (because come on now, you talk about 1930s Germany, do you think of Weimar Germany or Hitler and the Nazis rising to absolute power with the 1933 Enabling Act?). Some might say "well words mean something, words can lead to worse", and use the fact that Suella Braverman was criticised by Holocaust survivors for her words regarding refugees arriving illegally in the UK by small boats across the Channel to legitimise Gary Lineker's tweet. But the simple fact is the worst words coming out of the Tory Party regarding refugees and illegal migration into the UK, or any policy that can be enacted by this Tory government in the final death throes of its term of office, is NOTHING compared to the very concrete and real Fortress Europe built and manned by the EU and France in particular when we talk about small boats crossing the Channel. Yet we don't see Gary Lineker saying anything about how refugees are illegally entering by sea into the UK because they're physically driven away from any hope of safe haven in France (just Google about the Calais "Jungle" as a good example), or about how France is happy to take millions of pounds from the British government supposedly to police its own borders properly and take care of refugees accordingly. Being impartial means laying blame in the right places. The Tories might have failed to get to grips with managing and regulating the influx of refugees entering the UK, but they certainly aren't the ones throwing their doors open to call them all in no holds barred. Just because they want to further dissuade such illegal and unsafe Channel crossings now with their new Bill, suddenly they're the bad guys for turning refugees arriving illegally away? " Up until now I have enjoyed your thought-provoking and well thought out post, but this was a rant that clearly demonstrates where your sympathies lay. One question - why was Andrew Neil (arguably one of the most famous and high profile political commentators on the BBC before he left to join GB News) given complete impunity and free rein by the BBC when it came to his twitter and social media comments, newspaper columns, and being chairman of The Spectator? The biggest issue with illegal immigrants and asylum seekers trying to get to the UK is the lack of legal safe routes. It wouldn’t stop everyone but it would stop the majority. But then the issue goes away and can no longer be used as a PR distraction technique which IS lifted straight out of the Nazi playbook. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not.
The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same'
Make your mind up
That is why I am confused.
You have said both things.
"Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"?
Not exactly"
Also:
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
You can resolve that however you wish.
What are you talking about?
I made the first statement, subsequently saying they didn't say those words 'exactly'
I then stated they are the same thing to me.
I didn't at any point say they are not exactly the same. Learn to read. Honestly, these exchanges would be much more pleasant if you did that.
Right. So it is not possible to breach guidelines without bringing the organisation into disrepute.
As I said, quite a stretch from my perspective.
I wonder why they carefully used different words with different meanings to express what they really meant."Every company I’ve ever worked for has disrepute clauses and brand damage, along with proprietary ownership and so on. If was to stand up in a meeting of suppliers and began telling them what I thought of Braverman’s policies I would last no longer than the end of the meeting. Professional responsibility for the company I represent at all times, I see no difference in this. He knows the deal but has become overly political, if he wants to continue doing that he should take a professional approach and leave. He can look for another contract with the clauses weighted to his preferred outcomes or leave the industry to become vocal and stand on his own platform. The reaction is of his making and shows the importance of the impartiality to prevent this very thing. He has options | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not.
The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same'
Make your mind up
That is why I am confused.
You have said both things.
"Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"?
Not exactly"
Also:
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
You can resolve that however you wish.
What are you talking about?
I made the first statement, subsequently saying they didn't say those words 'exactly'
I then stated they are the same thing to me.
I didn't at any point say they are not exactly the same. Learn to read. Honestly, these exchanges would be much more pleasant if you did that.
Right. So it is not possible to breach guidelines without bringing the organisation into disrepute.
As I said, quite a stretch from my perspective.
I wonder why they carefully used different words with different meanings to express what they really meant.
Every company I’ve ever worked for has disrepute clauses and brand damage, along with proprietary ownership and so on.
If was to stand up in a meeting of suppliers and began telling them what I thought of Braverman’s policies I would last no longer than the end of the meeting.
Professional responsibility for the company I represent at all times, I see no difference in this.
He knows the deal but has become overly political, if he wants to continue doing that he should take a professional approach and leave. He can look for another contract with the clauses weighted to his preferred outcomes or leave the industry to become vocal and stand on his own platform.
The reaction is of his making and shows the importance of the impartiality to prevent this very thing.
He has options "Why didn’t the BBC invoke those clauses or take this stand with Andrew Neil? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not.
The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same'
Make your mind up
That is why I am confused.
You have said both things.
"Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"?
Not exactly"
Also:
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
You can resolve that however you wish.
What are you talking about?
I made the first statement, subsequently saying they didn't say those words 'exactly'
I then stated they are the same thing to me.
I didn't at any point say they are not exactly the same. Learn to read. Honestly, these exchanges would be much more pleasant if you did that.
Right. So it is not possible to breach guidelines without bringing the organisation into disrepute.
As I said, quite a stretch from my perspective.
I wonder why they carefully used different words with different meanings to express what they really meant.
Every company I’ve ever worked for has disrepute clauses and brand damage, along with proprietary ownership and so on.
If was to stand up in a meeting of suppliers and began telling them what I thought of Braverman’s policies I would last no longer than the end of the meeting.
Professional responsibility for the company I represent at all times, I see no difference in this.
He knows the deal but has become overly political, if he wants to continue doing that he should take a professional approach and leave. He can look for another contract with the clauses weighted to his preferred outcomes or leave the industry to become vocal and stand on his own platform.
The reaction is of his making and shows the importance of the impartiality to prevent this very thing.
He has options
Why didn’t the BBC invoke those clauses or take this stand with Andrew Neil?"Are you doing whataboutery, I love it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Up until now I have enjoyed your thought-provoking and well thought out post, but this was a rant that clearly demonstrates where your sympathies lay. One question - why was Andrew Neil (arguably one of the most famous and high profile political commentators on the BBC before he left to join GB News) given complete impunity and free rein by the BBC when it came to his twitter and social media comments, newspaper columns, and being chairman of The Spectator? The biggest issue with illegal immigrants and asylum seekers trying to get to the UK is the lack of legal safe routes. It wouldn’t stop everyone but it would stop the majority. But then the issue goes away and can no longer be used as a PR distraction technique which IS lifted straight out of the Nazi playbook. " I never said Andrew Neil was right, or it should have been permitted for him to be just as overtly political in his own personal social media utterings and other media interests that he held. I wasn't active on Fab forums here discussing such stuff when Andrew Neil was still at the BBC and he was making his comments and whatnot. So please do not mistake me not saying anything about him as approval instead for him. And my fundamental issue with any Nazi comparisons is that it becomes a distraction to the issues at hand because you automatically give a get-out-of-jail card to whoever's being accused of doing something comparable to what the Nazis did or said to cry foul about hyperbole being used against them by their critics. Instead of debating the issue, everyone ends up fighting over the terms and comparisons used to something that's already happened in history and can't be changed. I can easily go on and say that if we say that Tory rhetoric and proposed government policy sounds and looks like what the Nazis did during the 1930s in Germany, then far worse can be said of the EU and France with actual physical concrete structures and documented police brutality against refugees. But where would that whataboutism get us? Nowhere. What I said isn't a rant simply because you think it is. And I'm far less likely to value your opinion about my comments being a rant when I've kept my profile public whereas you hid yours. Which is a shame really, I did think Mrs Birldn looked hot and shouldn't be hidden on here. But hey, if you want to assume, that's like, just on you. Not me. Have a good Sat. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not.
The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same'
Make your mind up
That is why I am confused.
You have said both things.
"Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"?
Not exactly"
Also:
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
You can resolve that however you wish.
What are you talking about?
I made the first statement, subsequently saying they didn't say those words 'exactly'
I then stated they are the same thing to me.
I didn't at any point say they are not exactly the same. Learn to read. Honestly, these exchanges would be much more pleasant if you did that.
Right. So it is not possible to breach guidelines without bringing the organisation into disrepute.
As I said, quite a stretch from my perspective.
I wonder why they carefully used different words with different meanings to express what they really meant.
Every company I’ve ever worked for has disrepute clauses and brand damage, along with proprietary ownership and so on.
If was to stand up in a meeting of suppliers and began telling them what I thought of Braverman’s policies I would last no longer than the end of the meeting.
Professional responsibility for the company I represent at all times, I see no difference in this.
He knows the deal but has become overly political, if he wants to continue doing that he should take a professional approach and leave. He can look for another contract with the clauses weighted to his preferred outcomes or leave the industry to become vocal and stand on his own platform.
The reaction is of his making and shows the importance of the impartiality to prevent this very thing.
He has options
Why didn’t the BBC invoke those clauses or take this stand with Andrew Neil?
Are you doing whataboutery, I love it "I am because every other fucker does so why not! Can you answer the question? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not.
The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same'
Make your mind up
That is why I am confused.
You have said both things.
"Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"?
Not exactly"
Also:
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
You can resolve that however you wish.
What are you talking about?
I made the first statement, subsequently saying they didn't say those words 'exactly'
I then stated they are the same thing to me.
I didn't at any point say they are not exactly the same. Learn to read. Honestly, these exchanges would be much more pleasant if you did that.
Right. So it is not possible to breach guidelines without bringing the organisation into disrepute.
As I said, quite a stretch from my perspective.
I wonder why they carefully used different words with different meanings to express what they really meant.
Every company I’ve ever worked for has disrepute clauses and brand damage, along with proprietary ownership and so on.
If was to stand up in a meeting of suppliers and began telling them what I thought of Braverman’s policies I would last no longer than the end of the meeting.
Professional responsibility for the company I represent at all times, I see no difference in this.
He knows the deal but has become overly political, if he wants to continue doing that he should take a professional approach and leave. He can look for another contract with the clauses weighted to his preferred outcomes or leave the industry to become vocal and stand on his own platform.
The reaction is of his making and shows the importance of the impartiality to prevent this very thing.
He has options
Why didn’t the BBC invoke those clauses or take this stand with Andrew Neil?
Are you doing whataboutery, I love it
I am because every other fucker does so why not!
Can you answer the question?"What about the BBC are calling it as they see it Andrew Neil is a proven political commentator doing a job in challenging politicians and policies. Whereas Lineker has no experience other than his own personal views which are not wanted by his employer on subjects of this kind. This really does show why the BBC’s impartial rules are managed as they are, because when they’re breached it causes a crack that gets widened by those seeking political gains | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not.
The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same'
Make your mind up
That is why I am confused.
You have said both things.
"Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"?
Not exactly"
Also:
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
You can resolve that however you wish.
What are you talking about?
I made the first statement, subsequently saying they didn't say those words 'exactly'
I then stated they are the same thing to me.
I didn't at any point say they are not exactly the same. Learn to read. Honestly, these exchanges would be much more pleasant if you did that.
Right. So it is not possible to breach guidelines without bringing the organisation into disrepute.
As I said, quite a stretch from my perspective.
I wonder why they carefully used different words with different meanings to express what they really meant.
Every company I’ve ever worked for has disrepute clauses and brand damage, along with proprietary ownership and so on.
If was to stand up in a meeting of suppliers and began telling them what I thought of Braverman’s policies I would last no longer than the end of the meeting.
Professional responsibility for the company I represent at all times, I see no difference in this.
He knows the deal but has become overly political, if he wants to continue doing that he should take a professional approach and leave. He can look for another contract with the clauses weighted to his preferred outcomes or leave the industry to become vocal and stand on his own platform.
The reaction is of his making and shows the importance of the impartiality to prevent this very thing.
He has options
Why didn’t the BBC invoke those clauses or take this stand with Andrew Neil?
Are you doing whataboutery, I love it
I am because every other fucker does so why not!
Can you answer the question?
What about the BBC are calling it as they see it Andrew Neil is a proven political commentator doing a job in challenging politicians and policies. Whereas Lineker has no experience other than his own personal views which are not wanted by his employer on subjects of this kind.
This really does show why the BBC’s impartial rules are managed as they are, because when they’re breached it causes a crack that gets widened by those seeking political gains"Even more reason for Andrew Neil to be impartial as he has direct influence over the political commentary. However, his position and views were regularly made very clear away from BBC channels. But that was ok? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And for balance, the BBC did not sanction Chris Packham either. In a complaint about him they cited his freelance status and, get this, said... “We believe the audience can separate Chris’ presenting work for us from the personal views he shares outside of BBC programmes”" As per my previous comment, Packham is an expert in his field, Lineker can say what he wants about football and footballers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not.
The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same'
Make your mind up
That is why I am confused.
You have said both things.
"Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"?
Not exactly"
Also:
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
You can resolve that however you wish.
What are you talking about?
I made the first statement, subsequently saying they didn't say those words 'exactly'
I then stated they are the same thing to me.
I didn't at any point say they are not exactly the same. Learn to read. Honestly, these exchanges would be much more pleasant if you did that.
Right. So it is not possible to breach guidelines without bringing the organisation into disrepute.
As I said, quite a stretch from my perspective.
I wonder why they carefully used different words with different meanings to express what they really meant.
Every company I’ve ever worked for has disrepute clauses and brand damage, along with proprietary ownership and so on.
If was to stand up in a meeting of suppliers and began telling them what I thought of Braverman’s policies I would last no longer than the end of the meeting.
Professional responsibility for the company I represent at all times, I see no difference in this.
He knows the deal but has become overly political, if he wants to continue doing that he should take a professional approach and leave. He can look for another contract with the clauses weighted to his preferred outcomes or leave the industry to become vocal and stand on his own platform.
The reaction is of his making and shows the importance of the impartiality to prevent this very thing.
He has options
Why didn’t the BBC invoke those clauses or take this stand with Andrew Neil?
Are you doing whataboutery, I love it
I am because every other fucker does so why not!
Can you answer the question?
What about the BBC are calling it as they see it Andrew Neil is a proven political commentator doing a job in challenging politicians and policies. Whereas Lineker has no experience other than his own personal views which are not wanted by his employer on subjects of this kind.
This really does show why the BBC’s impartial rules are managed as they are, because when they’re breached it causes a crack that gets widened by those seeking political gains
Even more reason for Andrew Neil to be impartial as he has direct influence over the political commentary. However, his position and views were regularly made very clear away from BBC channels. But that was ok?"No… He is a political commentator and it is expected, expert in his field | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not.
The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same'
Make your mind up
That is why I am confused.
You have said both things.
"Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"?
Not exactly"
Also:
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
You can resolve that however you wish.
What are you talking about?
I made the first statement, subsequently saying they didn't say those words 'exactly'
I then stated they are the same thing to me.
I didn't at any point say they are not exactly the same. Learn to read. Honestly, these exchanges would be much more pleasant if you did that.
Right. So it is not possible to breach guidelines without bringing the organisation into disrepute.
As I said, quite a stretch from my perspective.
I wonder why they carefully used different words with different meanings to express what they really meant.
Every company I’ve ever worked for has disrepute clauses and brand damage, along with proprietary ownership and so on.
If was to stand up in a meeting of suppliers and began telling them what I thought of Braverman’s policies I would last no longer than the end of the meeting.
Professional responsibility for the company I represent at all times, I see no difference in this.
He knows the deal but has become overly political, if he wants to continue doing that he should take a professional approach and leave. He can look for another contract with the clauses weighted to his preferred outcomes or leave the industry to become vocal and stand on his own platform.
The reaction is of his making and shows the importance of the impartiality to prevent this very thing.
He has options
Why didn’t the BBC invoke those clauses or take this stand with Andrew Neil?
Are you doing whataboutery, I love it
I am because every other fucker does so why not!
Can you answer the question?
What about the BBC are calling it as they see it Andrew Neil is a proven political commentator doing a job in challenging politicians and policies. Whereas Lineker has no experience other than his own personal views which are not wanted by his employer on subjects of this kind.
This really does show why the BBC’s impartial rules are managed as they are, because when they’re breached it causes a crack that gets widened by those seeking political gains
Even more reason for Andrew Neil to be impartial as he has direct influence over the political commentary. However, his position and views were regularly made very clear away from BBC channels. But that was ok?
No…
He is a political commentator and it is expected, expert in his field "does his work require him to maintain his impartiality? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not.
The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same'
Make your mind up
That is why I am confused.
You have said both things.
"Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"?
Not exactly"
Also:
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
You can resolve that however you wish.
What are you talking about?
I made the first statement, subsequently saying they didn't say those words 'exactly'
I then stated they are the same thing to me.
I didn't at any point say they are not exactly the same. Learn to read. Honestly, these exchanges would be much more pleasant if you did that.
Right. So it is not possible to breach guidelines without bringing the organisation into disrepute.
As I said, quite a stretch from my perspective.
I wonder why they carefully used different words with different meanings to express what they really meant.
Every company I’ve ever worked for has disrepute clauses and brand damage, along with proprietary ownership and so on.
If was to stand up in a meeting of suppliers and began telling them what I thought of Braverman’s policies I would last no longer than the end of the meeting.
Professional responsibility for the company I represent at all times, I see no difference in this.
He knows the deal but has become overly political, if he wants to continue doing that he should take a professional approach and leave. He can look for another contract with the clauses weighted to his preferred outcomes or leave the industry to become vocal and stand on his own platform.
The reaction is of his making and shows the importance of the impartiality to prevent this very thing.
He has options
Why didn’t the BBC invoke those clauses or take this stand with Andrew Neil?
Are you doing whataboutery, I love it
I am because every other fucker does so why not!
Can you answer the question?
What about the BBC are calling it as they see it Andrew Neil is a proven political commentator doing a job in challenging politicians and policies. Whereas Lineker has no experience other than his own personal views which are not wanted by his employer on subjects of this kind.
This really does show why the BBC’s impartial rules are managed as they are, because when they’re breached it causes a crack that gets widened by those seeking political gains
Even more reason for Andrew Neil to be impartial as he has direct influence over the political commentary. However, his position and views were regularly made very clear away from BBC channels. But that was ok?
No…
He is a political commentator and it is expected, expert in his field "But he is not unbiassed or impartial | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who knows, if the Beeb can get away with scrapping MOTD and Football Focus, they'd have just saved themselves a lot of money without needing to make people redundant. Would go a long way in their cost cutting. Silver linings in clouds and all that. "sack lineker £1.35 million and a few of the other top pay grade guys shearer£450,000 etc.. save about £10million and employ a few ex footy guys from lower league teams and after a few weeks no one would care,, lineker can go back to flogging virtually empty packets of taseless crisps | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not.
The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same'
Make your mind up
That is why I am confused.
You have said both things.
"Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"?
Not exactly"
Also:
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
You can resolve that however you wish.
What are you talking about?
I made the first statement, subsequently saying they didn't say those words 'exactly'
I then stated they are the same thing to me.
I didn't at any point say they are not exactly the same. Learn to read. Honestly, these exchanges would be much more pleasant if you did that.
Right. So it is not possible to breach guidelines without bringing the organisation into disrepute.
As I said, quite a stretch from my perspective.
I wonder why they carefully used different words with different meanings to express what they really meant.
Every company I’ve ever worked for has disrepute clauses and brand damage, along with proprietary ownership and so on.
If was to stand up in a meeting of suppliers and began telling them what I thought of Braverman’s policies I would last no longer than the end of the meeting.
Professional responsibility for the company I represent at all times, I see no difference in this.
He knows the deal but has become overly political, if he wants to continue doing that he should take a professional approach and leave. He can look for another contract with the clauses weighted to his preferred outcomes or leave the industry to become vocal and stand on his own platform.
The reaction is of his making and shows the importance of the impartiality to prevent this very thing.
He has options
Why didn’t the BBC invoke those clauses or take this stand with Andrew Neil?
Are you doing whataboutery, I love it
I am because every other fucker does so why not!
Can you answer the question?
What about the BBC are calling it as they see it Andrew Neil is a proven political commentator doing a job in challenging politicians and policies. Whereas Lineker has no experience other than his own personal views which are not wanted by his employer on subjects of this kind.
This really does show why the BBC’s impartial rules are managed as they are, because when they’re breached it causes a crack that gets widened by those seeking political gains
Even more reason for Andrew Neil to be impartial as he has direct influence over the political commentary. However, his position and views were regularly made very clear away from BBC channels. But that was ok?
No…
He is a political commentator and it is expected, expert in his field
But he is not unbiassed or impartial"He has his place like other political commentators, that’s what they do and nobody is surprised at their opinions. And he will be balanced out on his BBC shows on his subject matter. He wouldn’t be welcomed for his opinions on non political matters…. As I keep saying, this only proves why impartiality and it being managed is important. Those with a political view are making a stand and causing a stink on something they care about, the BBC have platforms and presenters for that, Lineker isn’t one of them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why would he need to take more "care" over his political opinions as a football presenter? They are not in any way abusive or unpleasant or illegal. That's what I don't actually understand. How does that affect the perception of BBC News coverage? Why does he need to take more "care" over a part of the network that he does not influence in any way? It's not because he's a football commentator. It's because he is THE highest-paid BBC presenter (be it fulltime or freelance), and the face of BBC's flagship MOTD show. Football is bigger than news. What Gary Lineker says as a football commentator reaches MORE people than anything ANYONE in BBC News or even the BBC Chairman Richard Sharp might say. Like it or not, Lineker IS the face of the BBC alongside Sir David Attenborough. This is why what he said on his own Twitter account in his own personal capacity CANNOT be seen as commensurate with the BBC portraying itself as an impartial organisation. That is why his comments have drawn such opprobrium from the Tory government and absolutely given them a stick to smash the BBC with accusations of anti-government bias (whether justified or otherwise). I'll borrow a quote from The Patriot which illustrates my point best. When Horatio Gates asked Benjamin Martin (the main character played by Mel Gibson) about his "principles" as an American patriot supporting the reasons for revolution, Benjamin replies with this: "I'm a parent, I haven't got the luxury of principles". Gary Lineker hasn't got the luxury of principles as the de-facto face of the BBC in society and popular culture owing to his status as MOTD presenter and the highest-paid presenter of the BBC. He can't afford to pretend he can enjoy his own freedom of speech and opinion to be openly broadcast or said in public without it reflecting directly on the BBC. Most of the public won't care that he's not a BBC employee, that he's freelance and a hired gun of a football pundit for any TV network that can afford to hire him. All they will see is the face of Match Of The Day, a flagship BBC programme and arguably one of the last that still enjoys substantial societal attention across political lines come out not only in direct opposition to a proposed government policy bill, but in dogwhistling language alluding to Nazi Germany (because come on now, you talk about 1930s Germany, do you think of Weimar Germany or Hitler and the Nazis rising to absolute power with the 1933 Enabling Act?). Some might say "well words mean something, words can lead to worse", and use the fact that Suella Braverman was criticised by Holocaust survivors for her words regarding refugees arriving illegally in the UK by small boats across the Channel to legitimise Gary Lineker's tweet. But the simple fact is the worst words coming out of the Tory Party regarding refugees and illegal migration into the UK, or any policy that can be enacted by this Tory government in the final death throes of its term of office, is NOTHING compared to the very concrete and real Fortress Europe built and manned by the EU and France in particular when we talk about small boats crossing the Channel. Yet we don't see Gary Lineker saying anything about how refugees are illegally entering by sea into the UK because they're physically driven away from any hope of safe haven in France (just Google about the Calais "Jungle" as a good example), or about how France is happy to take millions of pounds from the British government supposedly to police its own borders properly and take care of refugees accordingly. Being impartial means laying blame in the right places. The Tories might have failed to get to grips with managing and regulating the influx of refugees entering the UK, but they certainly aren't the ones throwing their doors open to call them all in no holds barred. Just because they want to further dissuade such illegal and unsafe Channel crossings now with their new Bill, suddenly they're the bad guys for turning refugees arriving illegally away? " That's an awful lot to read and respond to. I'm sure you will receive the same level of criticism as I do from the same people that don't like me writing far less. Extensive use of capitalisation too. Nice. So you do think that the general population believe that Gary Lineker or Sir David Attenborough's political opinions influence how BBC News and politics are reported? That their political views represent those of the BBC? You think that the Tory party anger is because he broke BBC impartiality guidelines in principle or specifically because he was critical of their policy? He may well have given certain Conservative party supporters an opportunity to attack the BBC. Anything involving the BBC is an opportunity to attack it. However the BBC has not, itself done anything wrong. It did not have any involvement in Gary Lineker's Tweet, did it? I still find it extraordinary that you contend that the wider population believe that Gary Lineker or Sir David Attenborough political views influence BBC News and Politics impartiality. Sir David Attenborough addressed COP27. Should he not have been censured by the BBC for impartiality for that? Any, even vaguely, objective assessment would conclude that if anything he could be criticised for using his BBC derived fame to more widely publicise his personal political views. As an aside, in undertaking to follow that Conservative opinion the BBC has generated a problem for both itself and the Conservative Party as the entire sport appears to have come out in support of Gary Lineker. The last time the Government tried to take on footballing opinion it came off pretty badly. Have the current and former Home Secretaries not been using "dog whistling" language about immigrants? “There are one hundred million people displaced around the world, and likely billions more eager to come here if possible.” 1930s Germany was not Nazi. It was the period which allowed them to come to power. I have asked this before, but interested if anyone will actually answer under what circumstances it is acceptable to compare behaviour today with 1930s Germany? Is it simply not acceptable to use this critical point in history to learn from? "When I hear you using words against refugees like 'swarms' and an 'invasion', I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. "Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?" Also a dog whistle accusing Braverman of being a Nazi? "Fortress Europe" is an interesting invention. You are aware of both the overall and per capita numbers of refugees and asylum seekers accepted by countries in the EU relative to those in the UK, aren't you? It's an odd point to make if you are. Also, I am sure you have checked what proportion of small boat crossings were prevented by the French authorities over several hundred miles of coastline. The prevention of which benefits the UK. Why should France prevent people from leaving of their own free will? France may wish to put its tax payer funded Police and Coast Guard to other uses to directly benefit the French people. The BBC is also supposed to “scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account”. To be clear the rate of small boat crossings have risen at a dizzying rate under the policies of the Conservative party. A former Conservative Home Secretary, amongst others, has strongly criticised this Government's policy. They are not "suddenly" being criticised for anything. They have been criticised consistently for many years. 'Former Conservative home secretary Amber Rudd has called the government’s new small boats law“baffling” and accused her successor of making promises that “can’t be delivered”.' https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/small-boats-bill-sunak-amber-rudd-b2298074.html?amp | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not.
The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same'
Make your mind up
That is why I am confused.
You have said both things.
"Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"?
Not exactly"
Also:
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
You can resolve that however you wish.
What are you talking about?
I made the first statement, subsequently saying they didn't say those words 'exactly'
I then stated they are the same thing to me.
I didn't at any point say they are not exactly the same. Learn to read. Honestly, these exchanges would be much more pleasant if you did that.
Right. So it is not possible to breach guidelines without bringing the organisation into disrepute.
As I said, quite a stretch from my perspective.
I wonder why they carefully used different words with different meanings to express what they really meant.
Every company I’ve ever worked for has disrepute clauses and brand damage, along with proprietary ownership and so on.
If was to stand up in a meeting of suppliers and began telling them what I thought of Braverman’s policies I would last no longer than the end of the meeting.
Professional responsibility for the company I represent at all times, I see no difference in this.
He knows the deal but has become overly political, if he wants to continue doing that he should take a professional approach and leave. He can look for another contract with the clauses weighted to his preferred outcomes or leave the industry to become vocal and stand on his own platform.
The reaction is of his making and shows the importance of the impartiality to prevent this very thing.
He has options "Can guidelines be breached without bringing the organisation into disrepute? Standing up in a work setting and making a political comment would be strange. How would your company treat you if you stood up and made a non-abusive and non-agressive political comment somewhere not associated with your working environment? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not.
The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same'
Make your mind up
That is why I am confused.
You have said both things.
"Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"?
Not exactly"
Also:
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
You can resolve that however you wish.
What are you talking about?
I made the first statement, subsequently saying they didn't say those words 'exactly'
I then stated they are the same thing to me.
I didn't at any point say they are not exactly the same. Learn to read. Honestly, these exchanges would be much more pleasant if you did that.
Right. So it is not possible to breach guidelines without bringing the organisation into disrepute.
As I said, quite a stretch from my perspective.
I wonder why they carefully used different words with different meanings to express what they really meant.
Every company I’ve ever worked for has disrepute clauses and brand damage, along with proprietary ownership and so on.
If was to stand up in a meeting of suppliers and began telling them what I thought of Braverman’s policies I would last no longer than the end of the meeting.
Professional responsibility for the company I represent at all times, I see no difference in this.
He knows the deal but has become overly political, if he wants to continue doing that he should take a professional approach and leave. He can look for another contract with the clauses weighted to his preferred outcomes or leave the industry to become vocal and stand on his own platform.
The reaction is of his making and shows the importance of the impartiality to prevent this very thing.
He has options
Why didn’t the BBC invoke those clauses or take this stand with Andrew Neil?
Are you doing whataboutery, I love it
I am because every other fucker does so why not!
Can you answer the question?
What about the BBC are calling it as they see it Andrew Neil is a proven political commentator doing a job in challenging politicians and policies. Whereas Lineker has no experience other than his own personal views which are not wanted by his employer on subjects of this kind.
This really does show why the BBC’s impartial rules are managed as they are, because when they’re breached it causes a crack that gets widened by those seeking political gains
Even more reason for Andrew Neil to be impartial as he has direct influence over the political commentary. However, his position and views were regularly made very clear away from BBC channels. But that was ok?
No…
He is a political commentator and it is expected, expert in his field
But he is not unbiassed or impartial
He has his place like other political commentators, that’s what they do and nobody is surprised at their opinions. And he will be balanced out on his BBC shows on his subject matter.
He wouldn’t be welcomed for his opinions on non political matters….
As I keep saying, this only proves why impartiality and it being managed is important.
Those with a political view are making a stand and causing a stink on something they care about, the BBC have platforms and presenters for that, Lineker isn’t one of them "You have hugely contradicted yourself, which I find surprising. You are saying that a BBC news and politics presenter does not have to maintain political impartiality in his published personal political opinions but a football presenter does? You are saying that the general public will believe that the BBCs political impartiality will be brought into question because of a football presenter's opinions but not a political presenter's opinions being openly stated? That sounds absolutely bonkers to me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not.
The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same'
Make your mind up
That is why I am confused.
You have said both things.
"Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"?
Not exactly"
Also:
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
You can resolve that however you wish.
What are you talking about?
I made the first statement, subsequently saying they didn't say those words 'exactly'
I then stated they are the same thing to me.
I didn't at any point say they are not exactly the same. Learn to read. Honestly, these exchanges would be much more pleasant if you did that.
Right. So it is not possible to breach guidelines without bringing the organisation into disrepute.
As I said, quite a stretch from my perspective.
I wonder why they carefully used different words with different meanings to express what they really meant.
Every company I’ve ever worked for has disrepute clauses and brand damage, along with proprietary ownership and so on.
If was to stand up in a meeting of suppliers and began telling them what I thought of Braverman’s policies I would last no longer than the end of the meeting.
Professional responsibility for the company I represent at all times, I see no difference in this.
He knows the deal but has become overly political, if he wants to continue doing that he should take a professional approach and leave. He can look for another contract with the clauses weighted to his preferred outcomes or leave the industry to become vocal and stand on his own platform.
The reaction is of his making and shows the importance of the impartiality to prevent this very thing.
He has options
Why didn’t the BBC invoke those clauses or take this stand with Andrew Neil?
Are you doing whataboutery, I love it
I am because every other fucker does so why not!
Can you answer the question?
What about the BBC are calling it as they see it Andrew Neil is a proven political commentator doing a job in challenging politicians and policies. Whereas Lineker has no experience other than his own personal views which are not wanted by his employer on subjects of this kind.
This really does show why the BBC’s impartial rules are managed as they are, because when they’re breached it causes a crack that gets widened by those seeking political gains
Even more reason for Andrew Neil to be impartial as he has direct influence over the political commentary. However, his position and views were regularly made very clear away from BBC channels. But that was ok?
No…
He is a political commentator and it is expected, expert in his field
But he is not unbiassed or impartial
He has his place like other political commentators, that’s what they do and nobody is surprised at their opinions. And he will be balanced out on his BBC shows on his subject matter.
He wouldn’t be welcomed for his opinions on non political matters….
As I keep saying, this only proves why impartiality and it being managed is important.
Those with a political view are making a stand and causing a stink on something they care about, the BBC have platforms and presenters for that, Lineker isn’t one of them "We fundamentally disagree. Anybody regardless of their accepted professional expertise is entitled to have a political opinion. If not then why are you? Personally I like it when people who are known and respected in one field use their platform to raise awareness of other issues. Seemingly charities and marketing departments like that too hence celebrity endorsement and patronage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences. The reason for all of this is that Gary Linker's opinion on Government policy in immigrants either affects his ability to report on football or it affects the ability of news reporters to report on politics. Otherwise, what is the problem being solved? No it isn't. The BBC argue that it brings the organisation into disrepute. Have they argued that? The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days". "We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added. Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"? Not exactly but neither did they say 'exactly' what you claim. What did I claim? You don't remember? It was only a few posts back
I have certainly queried what the purpose of the guidelines are. What did I claim that the BBC had said or argued?
What you have quoted is, I believe, the only "argument" that the organisation has put forward. I have not questioned or reinterpreted that in any way. That certainly does not mention anything whatsoever about bringing the organisation into disrepute.
'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute. The have stated 'he has breached guidelines'
If you'd ratherbi retract my statement I'll be happy to.
That seems to be quite a jump to claim that those two things are synonymous.
Breaching guidelines = Bringing into disrepute
Do you not think that the consequences for the latter would not be far more serious?
Either you accept that they are very different you don't. Up to you.
You see them as something different. I see them as the same thing.
Why do you have such an issue that someone may have a different opinion to you?
You, yourself, said that they are not exactly the same thing although unable to identify what I claimed that the BBC had stated.
Is it not possible to break guidelines and not be disreputable?
Did I say that? Can you show me where?
You have said that they are the the same thing.
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
I find this confusing, I'm afraid. Either breaching guidelines automatically means that the company has been brought into disrepute as a consequence or it does not.
The post prior told me that I said 'they're not exactly the same'
Make your mind up
That is why I am confused.
You have said both things.
"Have they said that "it brings the organisation into disrepute"?
Not exactly"
Also:
"'Breaching guidelines' is bringing the company into disrepute."
You can resolve that however you wish.
What are you talking about?
I made the first statement, subsequently saying they didn't say those words 'exactly'
I then stated they are the same thing to me.
I didn't at any point say they are not exactly the same. Learn to read. Honestly, these exchanges would be much more pleasant if you did that.
Right. So it is not possible to breach guidelines without bringing the organisation into disrepute.
As I said, quite a stretch from my perspective.
I wonder why they carefully used different words with different meanings to express what they really meant.
Every company I’ve ever worked for has disrepute clauses and brand damage, along with proprietary ownership and so on.
If was to stand up in a meeting of suppliers and began telling them what I thought of Braverman’s policies I would last no longer than the end of the meeting.
Professional responsibility for the company I represent at all times, I see no difference in this.
He knows the deal but has become overly political, if he wants to continue doing that he should take a professional approach and leave. He can look for another contract with the clauses weighted to his preferred outcomes or leave the industry to become vocal and stand on his own platform.
The reaction is of his making and shows the importance of the impartiality to prevent this very thing.
He has options
Why didn’t the BBC invoke those clauses or take this stand with Andrew Neil?
Are you doing whataboutery, I love it
I am because every other fucker does so why not!
Can you answer the question?
What about the BBC are calling it as they see it Andrew Neil is a proven political commentator doing a job in challenging politicians and policies. Whereas Lineker has no experience other than his own personal views which are not wanted by his employer on subjects of this kind.
This really does show why the BBC’s impartial rules are managed as they are, because when they’re breached it causes a crack that gets widened by those seeking political gains
Even more reason for Andrew Neil to be impartial as he has direct influence over the political commentary. However, his position and views were regularly made very clear away from BBC channels. But that was ok?
No…
He is a political commentator and it is expected, expert in his field
But he is not unbiassed or impartial
He has his place like other political commentators, that’s what they do and nobody is surprised at their opinions. And he will be balanced out on his BBC shows on his subject matter.
He wouldn’t be welcomed for his opinions on non political matters….
As I keep saying, this only proves why impartiality and it being managed is important.
Those with a political view are making a stand and causing a stink on something they care about, the BBC have platforms and presenters for that, Lineker isn’t one of them
You have hugely contradicted yourself, which I find surprising.
You are saying that a BBC news and politics presenter does not have to maintain political impartiality in his published personal political opinions but a football presenter does?
You are saying that the general public will believe that the BBCs political impartiality will be brought into question because of a football presenter's opinions but not a political presenter's opinions being openly stated?
That sounds absolutely bonkers to me."It is complete bonkers but some people feel the need to double down. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well match of the day is only lasting 20 minutes tonight… no hosts, pundits or commentators Be careful with you wish for " dont particularly like jug ears but one good thing that might come out of this is it could start the downfall of the beeb, im sure those that like it wont mind subscribing to it, and those that dont like it wont be forced to fund it so win/win from my point of view | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Love this... “HIGNFY producers hoping BBC don’t find out that Ian Hislop also edits a satirical magazine occasionally critical of government policy.”" He does?! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is a reason why the certain government mps and ministers were clambering for the BBC to do something before… but for want of a better expression since gone silent, is they don’t want to be seen as the people who caused the decision! They want no part of the backlash and that is where the chairman and director general are the “useful fools” to take the flak Bit like being just far away enough to claim plausible deniability " Certainly feels that way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC have now pulled Fottball Focus for this afternoon after pundits & presenters withdraw" It looks like an organised unofficial strike. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC have now pulled Fottball Focus for this afternoon after pundits & presenters withdraw It looks like an organised unofficial strike." Would the Government's anti-strike legislation have covered this for maintaining a critical service? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They should also sack Attenborough too for being and the beck and call of lobbyists. More money saved. "An episode of his show has been cancelled for fear it would highlight the Tories disastrous failure to protect the environment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They should also sack Attenborough too for being and the beck and call of lobbyists. More money saved." "An episode of his show has been cancelled for fear it would highlight the Tories disastrous failure to protect the environment. " It hasn't been cancelled, it just isn't being broadcast (while still remaining accessible on iPlayer). The reason it isn't being broadcast is because filming was partly funded by the RSPB, and the WWF. This means that broadcasting it would violate the BBC's impartiality mandate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They should also sack Attenborough too for being and the beck and call of lobbyists. More money saved.
An episode of his show has been cancelled for fear it would highlight the Tories disastrous failure to protect the environment. "
Build more roads, railways and two runway airports is what I say. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They should also sack Attenborough too for being and the beck and call of lobbyists. More money saved.
An episode of his show has been cancelled for fear it would highlight the Tories disastrous failure to protect the environment.
Build more roads, railways and two runway airports is what I say."Why do you need additional runways when the hub and spoke model has shifted to point to point flights as aircraft range has increased? Why do you need more roads with more people working from home? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They should also sack Attenborough too for being and the beck and call of lobbyists. More money saved. An episode of his show has been cancelled for fear it would highlight the Tories disastrous failure to protect the environment. It hasn't been cancelled, it just isn't being broadcast (while still remaining accessible on iPlayer). The reason it isn't being broadcast is because filming was partly funded by the RSPB, and the WWF. This means that broadcasting it would violate the BBC's impartiality mandate." Let's not drag this out. Let's just say you win the semantic argument. I do not care which word I should have used to describe the show not being aired anymore. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They should also sack Attenborough too for being and the beck and call of lobbyists. More money saved. An episode of his show has been cancelled for fear it would highlight the Tories disastrous failure to protect the environment. It hasn't been cancelled, it just isn't being broadcast (while still remaining accessible on iPlayer). The reason it isn't being broadcast is because filming was partly funded by the RSPB, and the WWF. This means that broadcasting it would violate the BBC's impartiality mandate." This is all that the BBC has stated: "This is totally inaccurate, there is no ‘6th episode’. Wild Isles is – and always was - a 5 part series. We acquired a separate film for iPlayer from the RSPB, WWF and Silverback Films about people working to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the British Isles." Nothing about breaking the impartiality mandate. They couldn't broadcast it on i-Player either if that were the case, could they? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"An episode of his show has been cancelled for fear it would highlight the Tories disastrous failure to protect the environment." "It hasn't been cancelled, it just isn't being broadcast (while still remaining accessible on iPlayer). The reason it isn't being broadcast is because filming was partly funded by the RSPB, and the WWF. This means that broadcasting it would violate the BBC's impartiality mandate." "This is all that the BBC has stated: "This is totally inaccurate, there is no ‘6th episode’. Wild Isles is – and always was - a 5 part series. We acquired a separate film for iPlayer from the RSPB, WWF and Silverback Films about people working to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the British Isles." Nothing about breaking the impartiality mandate. They couldn't broadcast it on i-Player either if that were the case, could they?" Yes, they could. The BBC's broadcast mandate was created by an act of parliament. That act refers to "broadcasting", which means radio and television. The act hasn't been amended to cover streaming, and streaming is seen as an on-demand service, which is different to broadcasting. Even if the above weren't true, do you think that the BBC could broadcast a TV show that was part-funded by an environmental pressure group (WWF), and still claim to be acting impartially? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Best MOTD ever. No talking just the football highlights. All over in 20 mins and you don't have to wait 90mins to see you team at the end of the programme. It's the way forward." I was thinking that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"An episode of his show has been cancelled for fear it would highlight the Tories disastrous failure to protect the environment. It hasn't been cancelled, it just isn't being broadcast (while still remaining accessible on iPlayer). The reason it isn't being broadcast is because filming was partly funded by the RSPB, and the WWF. This means that broadcasting it would violate the BBC's impartiality mandate. This is all that the BBC has stated: "This is totally inaccurate, there is no ‘6th episode’. Wild Isles is – and always was - a 5 part series. We acquired a separate film for iPlayer from the RSPB, WWF and Silverback Films about people working to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the British Isles." Nothing about breaking the impartiality mandate. They couldn't broadcast it on i-Player either if that were the case, could they? Yes, they could. The BBC's broadcast mandate was created by an act of parliament. That act refers to "broadcasting", which means radio and television. The act hasn't been amended to cover streaming, and streaming is seen as an on-demand service, which is different to broadcasting. Even if the above weren't true, do you think that the BBC could broadcast a TV show that was part-funded by an environmental pressure group (WWF), and still claim to be acting impartially?" The BBC have not said that they could not broadcast the episode due to impartiality, did they? That is untrue, isn't it? Do you believe that the BBC would feel able to stream this on a technicality? They feel able to stream it but not broadcast it? Does the broadcast mandate extend to their website as well? Does that not have to be impartial either, on the same technicality? It's an interesting argument that you're making. I'd be intrigued to see how it develops. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"An episode of his show has been cancelled for fear it would highlight the Tories disastrous failure to protect the environment. It hasn't been cancelled, it just isn't being broadcast (while still remaining accessible on iPlayer). The reason it isn't being broadcast is because filming was partly funded by the RSPB, and the WWF. This means that broadcasting it would violate the BBC's impartiality mandate. This is all that the BBC has stated: "This is totally inaccurate, there is no ‘6th episode’. Wild Isles is – and always was - a 5 part series. We acquired a separate film for iPlayer from the RSPB, WWF and Silverback Films about people working to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the British Isles." Nothing about breaking the impartiality mandate. They couldn't broadcast it on i-Player either if that were the case, could they? Yes, they could. The BBC's broadcast mandate was created by an act of parliament. That act refers to "broadcasting", which means radio and television. The act hasn't been amended to cover streaming, and streaming is seen as an on-demand service, which is different to broadcasting. Even if the above weren't true, do you think that the BBC could broadcast a TV show that was part-funded by an environmental pressure group (WWF), and still claim to be acting impartially?" Wild Isles (working title), a 5x60’ series for BBC One and iPlayer, is made by Silverback Films, co-produced by The Open University, the RSPB and WWF. From BBC site. It seems that the BBC didnt fund any part of the sixth episode for whatever reason. So rspb and WWF funded it entirely. And used the same production teams. The BBC then purchased it. And Apparently the series are being sold abroad as a six parter. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"An episode of his show has been cancelled for fear it would highlight the Tories disastrous failure to protect the environment." "It hasn't been cancelled, it just isn't being broadcast (while still remaining accessible on iPlayer). The reason it isn't being broadcast is because filming was partly funded by the RSPB, and the WWF. This means that broadcasting it would violate the BBC's impartiality mandate." "This is all that the BBC has stated: "This is totally inaccurate, there is no ‘6th episode’. Wild Isles is – and always was - a 5 part series. We acquired a separate film for iPlayer from the RSPB, WWF and Silverback Films about people working to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the British Isles." Nothing about breaking the impartiality mandate. They couldn't broadcast it on i-Player either if that were the case, could they?" "Yes, they could. The BBC's broadcast mandate was created by an act of parliament. That act refers to "broadcasting", which means radio and television. The act hasn't been amended to cover streaming, and streaming is seen as an on-demand service, which is different to broadcasting. Even if the above weren't true, do you think that the BBC could broadcast a TV show that was part-funded by an environmental pressure group (WWF), and still claim to be acting impartially?" "The BBC have not said that they could not broadcast the episode due to impartiality, did they?" No, they haven't said that, and no one has claimed that they have. "Do you believe that the BBC would feel able to stream this on a technicality? They feel able to stream it but not broadcast it?" Yes. Because there's a difference between 'broadcasting' (pushing stuff into people's houses), and 'streaming' (letting people choose what they see). "Does the broadcast mandate extend to their website as well? Does that not have to be impartial either, on the same technicality?" No it doesn't. Like I said, broadcasting is just radio and TV. That's why the BBC News website is full of opinion pieces that wouldn't ever get shown on the broadcast news. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"An episode of his show has been cancelled for fear it would highlight the Tories disastrous failure to protect the environment. It hasn't been cancelled, it just isn't being broadcast (while still remaining accessible on iPlayer). The reason it isn't being broadcast is because filming was partly funded by the RSPB, and the WWF. This means that broadcasting it would violate the BBC's impartiality mandate. This is all that the BBC has stated: "This is totally inaccurate, there is no ‘6th episode’. Wild Isles is – and always was - a 5 part series. We acquired a separate film for iPlayer from the RSPB, WWF and Silverback Films about people working to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the British Isles." Nothing about breaking the impartiality mandate. They couldn't broadcast it on i-Player either if that were the case, could they? Yes, they could. The BBC's broadcast mandate was created by an act of parliament. That act refers to "broadcasting", which means radio and television. The act hasn't been amended to cover streaming, and streaming is seen as an on-demand service, which is different to broadcasting. Even if the above weren't true, do you think that the BBC could broadcast a TV show that was part-funded by an environmental pressure group (WWF), and still claim to be acting impartially? The BBC have not said that they could not broadcast the episode due to impartiality, did they? No, they haven't said that, and no one has claimed that they have. Do you believe that the BBC would feel able to stream this on a technicality? They feel able to stream it but not broadcast it? Yes. Because there's a difference between 'broadcasting' (pushing stuff into people's houses), and 'streaming' (letting people choose what they see). Does the broadcast mandate extend to their website as well? Does that not have to be impartial either, on the same technicality? No it doesn't. Like I said, broadcasting is just radio and TV. That's why the BBC News website is full of opinion pieces that wouldn't ever get shown on the broadcast news." Didn't you write this? The first sentence from the BBC, the second sentence not from the BBC. "The reason it isn't being broadcast is because filming was partly funded by the RSPB, and the WWF. This means that broadcasting it would violate the BBC's impartiality mandate." Isn't that claiming that they couldn't broadcast it due to the impartiality mandate? What does this mean then? "Section 4: Impartiality - Introduction Section 4.1 Impartiality The BBC is committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output." Do you think that includes streaming services and the website? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Didn't you write this? The first sentence from the BBC, the second sentence not from the BBC. "The reason it isn't being broadcast is because filming was partly funded by the RSPB, and the WWF. This means that broadcasting it would violate the BBC's impartiality mandate."" I did write that, but the first sentence is not from the BBC, it's my own words. "Isn't that claiming that they couldn't broadcast it due to the impartiality mandate?" It is claiming that they couldn't broadcast it because of their impartiality mandate, which is what I said. Earlier you posted "The BBC have not said that they could not broadcast the episode due to impartiality, did they?", which is totally correct, The BBC have not said that. And I haven't claimed that they've said that, and nor has anyone else. "What does this mean then? "Section 4: Impartiality - Introduction Section 4.1 Impartiality The BBC is committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output."" That's a quote from the BBC's Editorial Guidelines. It describes the standards that the BBC holds itself to. "Do you think that includes streaming services and the website?" Yes, the BBC tries to be impartial in all of its output. It wouldn't be streaming the RSPB/WWF film if it thought that it was biased. But broadcasting is different because there they have a mandate to be impartial, which means that they have to demonstrate to a parliamentary sub-committee that the rules have been followed. The BBC chooses to be impartial on all of its output, because that's part of its brand, and because it's publicly funded. The BBC is legally required to be impartial in all of its broadcast activities. Incidentally, that's why you don't get those "this website would like to send you notifications" messages from the BBC news website. 'Push notifications' are uncomfortably close to broadcasting. Again, if I've guessed wrongly about what you're trying to ask, I apologise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So MrDiscretionXXX you appear to be saying that the BBC only needs to apply impartiality in content that they broadcast and not on demand content and web content." I'm saying that they are legally required to be impartial in broadcast output. On non-broadcast output they want the general public to see them as impartial, but they aren't legally required to be. "If so then Lineker’s lawyers will find that interesting as they can argue any impartiality clause they might have in their freelance contracts also only extends to broadcast content and not in demand or web content." If there is an impartiality clause in his contract, that would trump any other rules the BBC has for itself. Personally, I doubt that there is any such clause. I believe that the important clause in Lineker's contact is the 'disrepute' one. The clause that says that he shouldn't do anything that makes the BBC look bad. This clause is a standard inclusion in all contracts nowadays. Obviously they aren't going to stand up and say "we're getting rid of him because he makes us look bad", so they come out with the 'impartiality' line. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So MrDiscretionXXX you appear to be saying that the BBC only needs to apply impartiality in content that they broadcast and not on demand content and web content. I'm saying that they are legally required to be impartial in broadcast output. On non-broadcast output they want the general public to see them as impartial, but they aren't legally required to be. If so then Lineker’s lawyers will find that interesting as they can argue any impartiality clause they might have in their freelance contracts also only extends to broadcast content and not in demand or web content. If there is an impartiality clause in his contract, that would trump any other rules the BBC has for itself. Personally, I doubt that there is any such clause. I believe that the important clause in Lineker's contact is the 'disrepute' one. The clause that says that he shouldn't do anything that makes the BBC look bad. This clause is a standard inclusion in all contracts nowadays. Obviously they aren't going to stand up and say "we're getting rid of him because he makes us look bad", so they come out with the 'impartiality' line." Well clearly Lineker has not brought the BBC into disrepute and the BBC response to previous “impartiality” complaints against Andrew Neil and Chris Packham means they do not have a leg to stand on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well clearly Lineker has not brought the BBC into disrepute ..." Are you following the news? There are hordes of people queueing up to throw abuse at the BBC for 'sacking" him. If they hadn't done so, there would be other hordes of people queueing up to throw abuse at them for 'condoning his words'. The point of disrepute clauses is to keep people's mouths shut, so that they don't generate this sort of attention. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They should also sack Attenborough too for being and the beck and call of lobbyists. More money saved. "The BBC aren’t showing the last episode of his new series. More censorship. David Attenborough is more than capable of speaking up for himself. They don’t employ many of these people directly but pay for their programmes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well clearly Lineker has not brought the BBC into disrepute ... Are you following the news? There are hordes of people queueing up to throw abuse at the BBC for 'sacking" him. If they hadn't done so, there would be other hordes of people queueing up to throw abuse at them for 'condoning his words'. The point of disrepute clauses is to keep people's mouths shut, so that they don't generate this sort of attention." The BBC did that to themselves when they took him off MOTD, not Lineker. What Lineker said wasn't related to the BBC, he didn't say it on the BBC. He did not bring the BBC into disrepute. I would have thought your heightened semantic sensors would have picked this up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well clearly Lineker has not brought the BBC into disrepute ..." "Are you following the news? There are hordes of people queueing up to throw abuse at the BBC for 'sacking" him. If they hadn't done so, there would be other hordes of people queueing up to throw abuse at them for 'condoning his words'. The point of disrepute clauses is to keep people's mouths shut, so that they don't generate this sort of attention." "The BBC did that to themselves when they took him off MOTD, not Lineker." So you didn't see all of those headlines 5 days ago saying that people were calling for him to be sacked over what he tweeted? That put the BBC in a position where they had to make a choice to either 'sack' him, or keep him. Either way they were going to get lots of flak from one side or the other. It was Lineker's tweet that started all this fuss, not the BBC's subsequent response. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well clearly Lineker has not brought the BBC into disrepute ... Are you following the news? There are hordes of people queueing up to throw abuse at the BBC for 'sacking" him. If they hadn't done so, there would be other hordes of people queueing up to throw abuse at them for 'condoning his words'. The point of disrepute clauses is to keep people's mouths shut, so that they don't generate this sort of attention. The BBC did that to themselves when they took him off MOTD, not Lineker. So you didn't see all of those headlines 5 days ago saying that people were calling for him to be sacked over what he tweeted? That put the BBC in a position where they had to make a choice to either 'sack' him, or keep him. Either way they were going to get lots of flak from one side or the other. It was Lineker's tweet that started all this fuss, not the BBC's subsequent response." Who was calling for him to be sacked? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well clearly Lineker has not brought the BBC into disrepute ... Are you following the news? There are hordes of people queueing up to throw abuse at the BBC for 'sacking" him. If they hadn't done so, there would be other hordes of people queueing up to throw abuse at them for 'condoning his words'. The point of disrepute clauses is to keep people's mouths shut, so that they don't generate this sort of attention. The BBC did that to themselves when they took him off MOTD, not Lineker. So you didn't see all of those headlines 5 days ago saying that people were calling for him to be sacked over what he tweeted? That put the BBC in a position where they had to make a choice to either 'sack' him, or keep him. Either way they were going to get lots of flak from one side or the other. It was Lineker's tweet that started all this fuss, not the BBC's subsequent response." and yet no sensure of alan sugar for tweeting mocked up photos of corbyn riding with hitler with mocking text ? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander .one wonders had linacre post in favour of the govt would there have been such a fuss ? Also of note is the only people using the word nazi are those complaining he did not | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well clearly Lineker has not brought the BBC into disrepute ... Are you following the news? There are hordes of people queueing up to throw abuse at the BBC for 'sacking" him. If they hadn't done so, there would be other hordes of people queueing up to throw abuse at them for 'condoning his words'. The point of disrepute clauses is to keep people's mouths shut, so that they don't generate this sort of attention." Nope that’s not how it works. You’re normally better than that. BBC own goal (sorry bad pun) The BBC should have reacted the same way they have previously for Andrew Neil, Chris Packham, Alan Sugar etc etc. Freelance. Not said via any of their channels. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm having great difficulty following your thread here. I've had to make some assumptions about what you're thinking, so forgive me if I get it wrong: Didn't you write this? The first sentence from the BBC, the second sentence not from the BBC. "The reason it isn't being broadcast is because filming was partly funded by the RSPB, and the WWF. This means that broadcasting it would violate the BBC's impartiality mandate." I did write that, but the first sentence is not from the BBC, it's my own words. Isn't that claiming that they couldn't broadcast it due to the impartiality mandate? It is claiming that they couldn't broadcast it because of their impartiality mandate, which is what I said. Earlier you posted "The BBC have not said that they could not broadcast the episode due to impartiality, did they?", which is totally correct, The BBC have not said that. And I haven't claimed that they've said that, and nor has anyone else. What does this mean then? "Section 4: Impartiality - Introduction Section 4.1 Impartiality The BBC is committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output." That's a quote from the BBC's Editorial Guidelines. It describes the standards that the BBC holds itself to. Do you think that includes streaming services and the website? Yes, the BBC tries to be impartial in all of its output. It wouldn't be streaming the RSPB/WWF film if it thought that it was biased. But broadcasting is different because there they have a mandate to be impartial, which means that they have to demonstrate to a parliamentary sub-committee that the rules have been followed. The BBC chooses to be impartial on all of its output, because that's part of its brand, and because it's publicly funded. The BBC is legally required to be impartial in all of its broadcast activities. Incidentally, that's why you don't get those "this website would like to send you notifications" messages from the BBC news website. 'Push notifications' are uncomfortably close to broadcasting. Again, if I've guessed wrongly about what you're trying to ask, I apologise." Yes, you are exceptionally confused, aren't you? You have just written an entire post taking apart you previous posts. You made up you own reason as to why you believed that Gary Lineker was asked to step back from presenting MOTD. You agree that the BBC impartiality policy extends across everything that it does. The BBC has not stated anywhere that it is not streaming the episode because of its impartiality mandate and if they were putting it on iPlayer for that reason they would still be breaking their mandate. You have made every part of what you have written up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well clearly Lineker has not brought the BBC into disrepute ... Are you following the news? There are hordes of people queueing up to throw abuse at the BBC for 'sacking" him. If they hadn't done so, there would be other hordes of people queueing up to throw abuse at them for 'condoning his words'. The point of disrepute clauses is to keep people's mouths shut, so that they don't generate this sort of attention. The BBC did that to themselves when they took him off MOTD, not Lineker. So you didn't see all of those headlines 5 days ago saying that people were calling for him to be sacked over what he tweeted? That put the BBC in a position where they had to make a choice to either 'sack' him, or keep him. Either way they were going to get lots of flak from one side or the other. It was Lineker's tweet that started all this fuss, not the BBC's subsequent response." It was Braverman, and previously Patel's, use of dehumanising and fear inducing language that started all of this. What is this "disrepute" clause? What is the wording? Describe what lineker said that is disreputable? Which words or combinations of words are disreputable and bring the BBC into disrepute? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm having great difficulty following your thread here. I've had to make some assumptions about what you're thinking, so forgive me if I get it wrong: Didn't you write this? The first sentence from the BBC, the second sentence not from the BBC. "The reason it isn't being broadcast is because filming was partly funded by the RSPB, and the WWF. This means that broadcasting it would violate the BBC's impartiality mandate." I did write that, but the first sentence is not from the BBC, it's my own words. Isn't that claiming that they couldn't broadcast it due to the impartiality mandate? It is claiming that they couldn't broadcast it because of their impartiality mandate, which is what I said. Earlier you posted "The BBC have not said that they could not broadcast the episode due to impartiality, did they?", which is totally correct, The BBC have not said that. And I haven't claimed that they've said that, and nor has anyone else. What does this mean then? "Section 4: Impartiality - Introduction Section 4.1 Impartiality The BBC is committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output." That's a quote from the BBC's Editorial Guidelines. It describes the standards that the BBC holds itself to. Do you think that includes streaming services and the website? Yes, the BBC tries to be impartial in all of its output. It wouldn't be streaming the RSPB/WWF film if it thought that it was biased. But broadcasting is different because there they have a mandate to be impartial, which means that they have to demonstrate to a parliamentary sub-committee that the rules have been followed. The BBC chooses to be impartial on all of its output, because that's part of its brand, and because it's publicly funded. The BBC is legally required to be impartial in all of its broadcast activities. Incidentally, that's why you don't get those "this website would like to send you notifications" messages from the BBC news website. 'Push notifications' are uncomfortably close to broadcasting. Again, if I've guessed wrongly about what you're trying to ask, I apologise. Yes, you are exceptionally confused, aren't you? You have just written an entire post taking apart you previous posts. You made up you own reason as to why you believed that Gary Lineker was asked to step back from presenting MOTD. You agree that the BBC impartiality policy extends across everything that it does. The BBC has not stated anywhere that it is not streaming the episode because of its impartiality mandate and if they were putting it on iPlayer for that reason they would still be breaking their mandate. You have made every part of what you have written up." Typo You made up you own reason as to why you believed that David Attenborough's final episode was deleted£. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To be honest I don't like Lineker, I don't watch MOTD live because I can't stand him. I wait till it's on the iplayer then fast forward the bits he is on. It makes MOTD a lot better. The only time I could watch him was the Walkers crips Ad's (I like Walkers crips) his finest and only moment.! If he doesn't return to MOTD it's no great loss and the program will just carry on. I bet there are plenty of ex football players waiting for a phone call to get the chance to do some presenting. " ................................ Lineker has become very accomplished over the last 20 years as the Thinking Person's Football Presenter, this has traction with the millions of fans who don't follow the EDL or believe a good night out involves smashing up pubs and terrorising opposition communities. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You made up you own reason as to why you believed that Gary Lineker was asked to step back from presenting MOTD." I wouldn't say I made it up all on my own. It's discussed in most of the news articles. But yes, that is my opinion, I made that very clear in my post. "You agree that the BBC impartiality policy extends across everything that it does." Yes. As I've already said, their policy applies to all of their output, but their legal duty only applies to broadcast material. "The BBC has not stated anywhere that it is not streaming the episode because of its impartiality mandate ..." Correct, as I have already said. "and if they were putting it on iPlayer for that reason they would still be breaking their mandate." No, the mandate only applies to broadcast material. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What is this "disrepute" clause? What is the wording? Describe what lineker said that is disreputable? Which words or combinations of words are disreputable and bring the BBC into disrepute? " A 'disrepute' clause is a part of a contract that effectively says that the contractor agrees not to do anything that would bring negative attention to the contractee. A standard clause might read "The Contractor agrees not to engage in any conduct, business or personal, that brings the the Company into disrepute or disregard". It's used by companies to allow them to terminate a contract if the person they have hired draws negative attention to them. It's important to note that the behaviour of the contractor doesn't need to be disreputable. The only thing that matters is if the Contractee is getting bad publicity because of the contractor. Just to make it absolutely clear, I do not work for the BBC, nor have I seen Gary Lineker's contract. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You made up you own reason as to why you believed that David Attenborough's final episode was deleted£." No I didn't. I said "The reason it isn't being broadcast is because filming was partly funded by the RSPB, and the WWF. ". That is my paraphrasing of the words that the BBC have used to describe the issue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whatever happened or happens, Match of the day was far better without the ramblings and bullshit opinions of Linneker et al Keep it in this format and save the money wasted on the wasters " Viewing figures for Saturday's show were up by half a million, to more than 2.5m. No fuss just the highlights is the way forward. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whatever happened or happens, Match of the day was far better without the ramblings and bullshit opinions of Linneker et al Keep it in this format and save the money wasted on the wasters Viewing figures for Saturday's show were up by half a million, to more than 2.5m. No fuss just the highlights is the way forward. " People watched out of curiosity | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whatever happened or happens, Match of the day was far better without the ramblings and bullshit opinions of Linneker et al Keep it in this format and save the money wasted on the wasters Viewing figures for Saturday's show were up by half a million, to more than 2.5m. No fuss just the highlights is the way forward. " People tuned in to see what a shitshow it was going to be | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What is this "disrepute" clause? What is the wording? Describe what lineker said that is disreputable? Which words or combinations of words are disreputable and bring the BBC into disrepute? A 'disrepute' clause is a part of a contract that effectively says that the contractor agrees not to do anything that would bring negative attention to the contractee. A standard clause might read "The Contractor agrees not to engage in any conduct, business or personal, that brings the the Company into disrepute or disregard". It's used by companies to allow them to terminate a contract if the person they have hired draws negative attention to them. It's important to note that the behaviour of the contractor doesn't need to be disreputable. The only thing that matters is if the Contractee is getting bad publicity because of the contractor. Just to make it absolutely clear, I do not work for the BBC, nor have I seen Gary Lineker's contract." You actually have zero idea what the terms of Linker's contract are nor what the definition of "disrepute" are within the terms of his contract. He has done nothing disreputable. As a someone with zero legal knowledge you are adding assumption upon assumption by making a claim that his behaviour has brought disrepute on the BBC due to how they chose to handle the matter. Something that they were completely at liberty to choose how to do. You don't have any idea if "The only thing that matters is if the Contractee is getting bad publicity because of the contractor". You are making it up, like everything else that you have declared as fact in this thread until challenged. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What is this "disrepute" clause? What is the wording? Describe what lineker said that is disreputable? Which words or combinations of words are disreputable and bring the BBC into disrepute? A 'disrepute' clause is a part of a contract that effectively says that the contractor agrees not to do anything that would bring negative attention to the contractee. A standard clause might read "The Contractor agrees not to engage in any conduct, business or personal, that brings the the Company into disrepute or disregard". It's used by companies to allow them to terminate a contract if the person they have hired draws negative attention to them. It's important to note that the behaviour of the contractor doesn't need to be disreputable. The only thing that matters is if the Contractee is getting bad publicity because of the contractor. Just to make it absolutely clear, I do not work for the BBC, nor have I seen Gary Lineker's contract. You actually have zero idea what the terms of Linker's contract are nor what the definition of "disrepute" are within the terms of his contract. He has done nothing disreputable. As a someone with zero legal knowledge you are adding assumption upon assumption by making a claim that his behaviour has brought disrepute on the BBC due to how they chose to handle the matter. Something that they were completely at liberty to choose how to do. You don't have any idea if "The only thing that matters is if the Contractee is getting bad publicity because of the contractor". You are making it up, like everything else that you have declared as fact in this thread until challenged." and neither do you know what written in his contract | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What is this "disrepute" clause? What is the wording? Describe what lineker said that is disreputable? Which words or combinations of words are disreputable and bring the BBC into disrepute? A 'disrepute' clause is a part of a contract that effectively says that the contractor agrees not to do anything that would bring negative attention to the contractee. A standard clause might read "The Contractor agrees not to engage in any conduct, business or personal, that brings the the Company into disrepute or disregard". It's used by companies to allow them to terminate a contract if the person they have hired draws negative attention to them. It's important to note that the behaviour of the contractor doesn't need to be disreputable. The only thing that matters is if the Contractee is getting bad publicity because of the contractor. Just to make it absolutely clear, I do not work for the BBC, nor have I seen Gary Lineker's contract. You actually have zero idea what the terms of Linker's contract are nor what the definition of "disrepute" are within the terms of his contract. He has done nothing disreputable. As a someone with zero legal knowledge you are adding assumption upon assumption by making a claim that his behaviour has brought disrepute on the BBC due to how they chose to handle the matter. Something that they were completely at liberty to choose how to do. You don't have any idea if "The only thing that matters is if the Contractee is getting bad publicity because of the contractor". You are making it up, like everything else that you have declared as fact in this thread until challenged.and neither do you know what written in his contract" He doesn’t but what we do know as a fact is when the BBC were previously dealing with complaints about Andrew Neil, Chris Packham, and Alan Sugar, their response was that as freelancers they are entitled to their opinions and to express them in channels that are not part of the BBC. So what changed? Apart from that is the senior management at the BBC (inc the newish Chairman who donated £400k to the Conservative Party and helped arrange an £800k loan for then PM Johnson). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, if I have this correct, the BBC are withdrawing the entity of their football commentary because a comment about immigration policy by a football pundit brings into question their ability to be impartial about sport? They are not withdrawing by choice. They have fallen foul of the backlash of their decision over Gary Lineker. As I stated before Gary isn't free from consequences. The BBC are now seeing that they, neither are free from consequences." Comentators and pundits have withdraw their services in support. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You actually have zero idea what the terms of Linker's contract are nor what the definition of "disrepute" are within the terms of his contract." AS I've said, very clearly, I have not seen Lineker's contract. But I do have some idea of what sort of things are likely to be in it, and a 'disrepute' clause will be one of them. The 'disrepute' clause is now a standard item in every contract. It's been in every one of the ones I've signed for the last 15 years. The BBC would be mad not to have one in every presenter's contract. It's possible that Lineker asked for it to be removed, and that they agreed, but I don't think that's likely. Even if that was the case, the BBC's Editorial Guidelines state "BBC staff should avoid bringing the BBC into disrepute through their actions on social media". "He has done nothing disreputable." Again, I agree, but that's not what "bringing the organisation into disrepute" means. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You actually have zero idea what the terms of Linker's contract are nor what the definition of "disrepute" are within the terms of his contract. AS I've said, very clearly, I have not seen Lineker's contract. But I do have some idea of what sort of things are likely to be in it, and a 'disrepute' clause will be one of them. The 'disrepute' clause is now a standard item in every contract. It's been in every one of the ones I've signed for the last 15 years. The BBC would be mad not to have one in every presenter's contract. It's possible that Lineker asked for it to be removed, and that they agreed, but I don't think that's likely. Even if that was the case, the BBC's Editorial Guidelines state "BBC staff should avoid bringing the BBC into disrepute through their actions on social media". He has done nothing disreputable. Again, I agree, but that's not what "bringing the organisation into disrepute" means." You do not, actually, know what it means or how it is interpreted or applied legally do you? You also have no clue what is specifically written in Lineker's contract which will be a long way from standard. Please just stop pretending and making definitive statements that are not backed up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What is this "disrepute" clause? What is the wording? Describe what lineker said that is disreputable? Which words or combinations of words are disreputable and bring the BBC into disrepute? A 'disrepute' clause is a part of a contract that effectively says that the contractor agrees not to do anything that would bring negative attention to the contractee. A standard clause might read "The Contractor agrees not to engage in any conduct, business or personal, that brings the the Company into disrepute or disregard". It's used by companies to allow them to terminate a contract if the person they have hired draws negative attention to them. It's important to note that the behaviour of the contractor doesn't need to be disreputable. The only thing that matters is if the Contractee is getting bad publicity because of the contractor. Just to make it absolutely clear, I do not work for the BBC, nor have I seen Gary Lineker's contract. You actually have zero idea what the terms of Linker's contract are nor what the definition of "disrepute" are within the terms of his contract. He has done nothing disreputable. As a someone with zero legal knowledge you are adding assumption upon assumption by making a claim that his behaviour has brought disrepute on the BBC due to how they chose to handle the matter. Something that they were completely at liberty to choose how to do. You don't have any idea if "The only thing that matters is if the Contractee is getting bad publicity because of the contractor". You are making it up, like everything else that you have declared as fact in this thread until challenged.and neither do you know what written in his contract" Quite. Hence I have not pretended to interpret what the BBC is doing based on an unseen contract. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You made up you own reason as to why you believed that David Attenborough's final episode was deleted£. No I didn't. I said "The reason it isn't being broadcast is because filming was partly funded by the RSPB, and the WWF. ". That is my paraphrasing of the words that the BBC have used to describe the issue." You literally write this: "The reason it isn't being broadcast is because filming was partly funded by the RSPB, and the WWF. This means that broadcasting it would violate the BBC's impartiality mandate." Again you added something made up at the end. They apply their impartiality policy to everything. All of their output. That means if it breaks their policy it could not be shown on i-player either. However, it is being streamed on i-player so it meets their policy on impartiality which they apply to everything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You do not, actually, know what it means or how it is interpreted or applied legally do you?" Yes I do. I know exactly how this is interpreted and applied. But just searching for "bringing the company into disrepute" will find you plenty of examples. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You do not, actually, know what it means or how it is interpreted or applied legally do you? Yes I do. I know exactly how this is interpreted and applied. But just searching for "bringing the company into disrepute" will find you plenty of examples." So no. You read something on the internet and assume that you understand something You have never been involved in any litigation and do not have a clue what Gary Lineker's contract looks like. The BBC have also said absolutely nothing about bringing the organisation into disrepute. They also only asked him to step back from MOTD. Nothing very serious for "bringing the organisation into disrepute". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They apply their impartiality policy to everything. All of their output. That means if it breaks their policy it could not be shown on i-player either. However, it is being streamed on i-player so it meets their policy on impartiality which they apply to everything." It's beginning to look like you're deliberately conflating 'policy' and 'mandate'. The BBC has a policy of being impartial in everything. The BBC have a legal mandate to be impartial in their broadcast output. This mandate does not apply to non-broadcast output. If the BBC get a free programme which they believe is impartial, they can make it available on iPlayer. If the government doesn't like it, the BBC can just say that they consider it meets their standards of impartiality, and that's the end of the matter. If they broadcast that same programme and the government doesn't like it, they have to appear before a parliamentary sub-committee to explain themselves. It would be incredibly difficult to check every fact, and justify every statement, and prove that no part of the programme was propaganda from an environmental pressure group. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They apply their impartiality policy to everything. All of their output. That means if it breaks their policy it could not be shown on i-player either. However, it is being streamed on i-player so it meets their policy on impartiality which they apply to everything. It's beginning to look like you're deliberately conflating 'policy' and 'mandate'. The BBC has a policy of being impartial in everything. The BBC have a legal mandate to be impartial in their broadcast output. This mandate does not apply to non-broadcast output. If the BBC get a free programme which they believe is impartial, they can make it available on iPlayer. If the government doesn't like it, the BBC can just say that they consider it meets their standards of impartiality, and that's the end of the matter. If they broadcast that same programme and the government doesn't like it, they have to appear before a parliamentary sub-committee to explain themselves. It would be incredibly difficult to check every fact, and justify every statement, and prove that no part of the programme was propaganda from an environmental pressure group." I don't care about the distinction between policy and mandate. They only apply the policy as a result of the mandate. Not broadcasting the final programme is nothing at all to do with impartiality. The BBC have claimed that. Only you have. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They apply their impartiality policy to everything. All of their output. That means if it breaks their policy it could not be shown on i-player either. However, it is being streamed on i-player so it meets their policy on impartiality which they apply to everything. It's beginning to look like you're deliberately conflating 'policy' and 'mandate'. The BBC has a policy of being impartial in everything. The BBC have a legal mandate to be impartial in their broadcast output. This mandate does not apply to non-broadcast output. If the BBC get a free programme which they believe is impartial, they can make it available on iPlayer. If the government doesn't like it, the BBC can just say that they consider it meets their standards of impartiality, and that's the end of the matter. If they broadcast that same programme and the government doesn't like it, they have to appear before a parliamentary sub-committee to explain themselves. It would be incredibly difficult to check every fact, and justify every statement, and prove that no part of the programme was propaganda from an environmental pressure group. I don't care about the distinction between policy and mandate. They only apply the policy as a result of the mandate. Not broadcasting the final programme is nothing at all to do with impartiality. The BBC have claimed that. Only you have." Haven't* | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whatever happened or happens, Match of the day was far better without the ramblings and bullshit opinions of Linneker et al Keep it in this format and save the money wasted on the wasters Viewing figures for Saturday's show were up by half a million, to more than 2.5m. No fuss just the highlights is the way forward. " First time I have seen it live in a while. If in the unlikely event it continues this way I may watch more often | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
