advertisement


Gary Lineker vs. BBC

SteveS1 said:
Another rather bizarre attempt to defend the indefensible. You know what Dachau was then and what it became. None of which has anything to do with the comments of Lineker.
Click to expand...
It has everything to do with it if you're going to use a Nazis-in-the-30s analogy.
Braverman knew who she was playing to with her deliberately couched comments and rather stupid exaggerations. Seems to include you.
Click to expand...
Exactly who?
 
Paul R said:
He's not in discussion with HMRC about a substantial amount of unpaid tax that hinges on whether he is effectively an employee of the BBC? That changes everything.

You might want to make some effort to introduce argument. This place is like a toxic echo chamber.

(I have no problem with Lineker making political comments, he's a moron, they have no value. I have a problem with being forced to pay for him. I see no point in the BBC showing snippets of football matches to a small audience interspersed with inane commentary. Sky Sport costs a similar amount as the licence fee, if the BBC were funded voluntarily everybody who liked football could afford to watch unlimited amounts at the cost of losing access to Strictly and Countryfile. The rest of us could buy some records.)
Click to expand...

If they had no value then there wouldn't have been a plethora of BBC sports announcers boycotting presentation duties to show solidarity, the BBC wouldn't have been thrown into disarray, a debate about the UK's immigration policy wouldn't be happening, the Tories wouldn't be getting hot under the collar and there wouldn't be calls for the BBC chairman to resign.

So no, not important at all... :rolleyes:
 
Paul R said:
He's not in discussion with HMRC about a substantial amount of unpaid tax that hinges on whether he is effectively an employee of the BBC? That changes everything.

You might want to make some effort to introduce argument. This place is like a toxic echo chamber.

(I have no problem with Lineker making political comments, he's a moron, they have no value. I have a problem with being forced to pay for him. I see no point in the BBC showing snippets of football matches to a small audience interspersed with inane commentary. Sky Sport costs a similar amount as the licence fee, if the BBC were funded voluntarily everybody who liked football could afford to watch unlimited amounts at the cost of losing access to Strictly and Countryfile. The rest of us could buy some records.)
Click to expand...

I have some bad news, his comments have as much, if not more value than yours - given his reach, while you confine your wisdom to this toxic echo chamber. On the subject of toxicity, I get it, you're on board with Braverman's play for the racist vote. I expect we will see more as the Tories fear losing them to Tice. Enjoy your records.
 
Braverman's an intellectual pygmy desperately trying to curry favour with a particularly unsavoury voter community that could be easily persuaded to vote conservative at the next election so her friends can keep stuffing our money up their jumpers.

However, it transpires she's just as shit at play acting being a fascist as she is at everything else she's put her hands to.

I have no idea if Gary Lineker is any good at what he does or if he's worth what he is paid, but by making everyone involved sweat a bit, he's quite clearly done more for the public good than any sitting conservative MP has done recently. What he said was also true. There is quite clearly equivalence between the rhetoric she is deploying now with that of the German nazi party in the 1930's.
 
Paul R said:
He's not in discussion with HMRC about a substantial amount of unpaid tax that hinges on whether he is effectively an employee of the BBC? That changes everything.

You might want to make some effort to introduce argument. This place is like a toxic echo chamber.

(I have no problem with Lineker making political comments, he's a moron, they have no value. I have a problem with being forced to pay for him. I see no point in the BBC showing snippets of football matches to a small audience interspersed with inane commentary. Sky Sport costs a similar amount as the licence fee, if the BBC were funded voluntarily everybody who liked football could afford to watch unlimited amounts at the cost of losing access to Strictly and Countryfile. The rest of us could buy some records.)
Click to expand...

Paul, you don’t like it here and we don’t like you being here. Why not find somewhere else to post that is more accommodating to your political views?
 
NeilR said:
Paul, you don’t like it here and we don’t like you being here. Why not find somewhere else to post that is more accommodating to your political views?
Click to expand...

I’m not hoofing or pushing Paul out at all. I find his politics utterly repulsive, everything I stand against, but I respect his knowledge of maths & electronics. I also get on fine with him in the real world having met him several times at the WigWam show etc.

My post was intended as an editorial distancing from political views that really do not belong on a firmly and unambiguously anti-fascist website. My aim was to do that in an hopefully amusing piss-taking manner. It isn’t a precursor to a ban or anything. I will always moderate content in line with what I feel is an acceptable place for my business to reside. That is a very long away from the current Tory Party’s hate rhetoric or those who would articulate support for their international law breaking bigotry and xenophobia. Those views are certainly not something I would wish to associate the pfm brand with.

PS For clarity: if providing an open tolerant anti-racist LBGTQ+ friendly space is viewed by certain political extremists as an echo-chamber I can live with that. They can live with a very firm line in the sand as I really do not move on this one, and I’m the one with the delete button!
 
Mr Pie and his take on it.


Note: Where did Braverman appear from anyway? I’d never heard of her until a couple of years ago and she thinks she should be PM.
 
Tony L said:
I’m not hoofing or pushing Paul out at all. I find his politics utterly repulsive, everything I stand against, but I respect his knowledge of maths & electronics. I also get on fine with him in the real world having met him several times at the WigWam show etc.

My post was intended as an editorial distancing from political views that really do not belong on a firmly and unambiguously anti-fascist website. My aim was to do that in an hopefully amusing piss-taking manner. It isn’t a precursor to a ban or anything. I will always moderate content in line with what I feel is an acceptable place for my business to reside, and that is certainly a very long away from the current Tory Party’s hate rhetoric and those who would articulate support for that international law breaking bigotry. Those views are certainly not something I would wish publish.
Click to expand...

You are a better man than me, Tony. I am afraid I can’t separate the person from their political views.

Btw, i am not calling on paul to be banned, I was rather wondering if there might be a more receptive home for him to post his views.
 
Paul R said:
He's not in discussion with HMRC about a substantial amount of unpaid tax that hinges on whether he is effectively an employee of the BBC? That changes everything.

You might want to make some effort to introduce argument. This place is like a toxic echo chamber.

(I have no problem with Lineker making political comments, he's a moron, they have no value. I have a problem with being forced to pay for him. I see no point in the BBC showing snippets of football matches to a small audience interspersed with inane commentary. Sky Sport costs a similar amount as the licence fee, if the BBC were funded voluntarily everybody who liked football could afford to watch unlimited amounts at the cost of losing access to Strictly and Countryfile. The rest of us could buy some records.)
Click to expand...
He’s not a moron.

BBC has forced staff to become freelancers, quite a number are less well remunerated than Lineker & are in danger of facing hardship. Other former employees of the BBC are in similar action & have very strong cases. The HMRC disagree about his status so two public bodies are acting in conflict. Even if Lineker wins he will still face substantial legal costs which are unlikely to be awarded.

Football is popular & is watched by millions.

Sky sports subscription is a lot more than the license fee.

There is actually very little football on the BBC comparatively.

I don’t particularly like a lot of light entertainment shows but I value much of the BBCs output.
 
richardg said:
Horrific, Guinness in a Carling glass?
Click to expand...

It was Murphys in a Murphys glass. God alone knows anyone felt the need to shop it - the original had the same effect.

Eyhf5GjWEAQ4Wvz


https://twitter.com/MarieAnnUK/status/1385177672796475394
 
Paul R said:
He's not in discussion with HMRC about a substantial amount of unpaid tax that hinges on whether he is effectively an employee of the BBC? That changes everything.

You might want to make some effort to introduce argument. This place is like a toxic echo chamber.

(I have no problem with Lineker making political comments, he's a moron, they have no value. I have a problem with being forced to pay for him. I see no point in the BBC showing snippets of football matches to a small audience interspersed with inane commentary. Sky Sport costs a similar amount as the licence fee, if the BBC were funded voluntarily everybody who liked football could afford to watch unlimited amounts at the cost of losing access to Strictly and Countryfile. The rest of us could buy some records.)
Click to expand...


It is an echo chamber for some - see the Starmer boo boys - but I think we should support GL on this one - he does a lot of work for the Red Cross/immigrants for one (though he doesn't shout about it). And yes he earns a lot of money and the tone of this thread would be radically different if he worked in the private sector, but I can only assume he deserves most of it based on his audience ratings, brand, and innate abilities (or maybe he's just an excellent negotiator). Ultimately though he makes a valid point about how some in the government describe and want to treat immigrants. That's the important point IMO. And you will be aware of the global popularity of the EPL, and that the BBC offers much more than just football.
 
Woodface said:
The thing about Braverman is that she’s not ‘thick’, she just believes in hateful things; like a lot of Tories she has no empathy.
Click to expand...
Intelligence is relative. Like many that have risen to the top since the ascent of Brexit and Boris, she utterly lacks the sort of insight and strategic thinking skills that ministers need to achieve their objectives. She shouts and squawks a lot precisely because the sir Humphreys of this world run intellectual rings around her. She is no Charles Clark or Amber Rudd, who are probably the most intellectually commanding to have held the office in the last 20 years or so.
 
Brian said:
Note: Where did Braverman appear from anyway? I’d never heard of her until a couple of years ago and she thinks she should be PM.
Click to expand...

Her meteoric rise is down to her being on the hard right of the Tory party and possessing unquestionable Brexit credentials (she is a member of the ERG). After May left office and the Brexiteers and Johnson took over she floated to the top, as it were, as other more experienced ministers wanted nothing to do with such a government or were deemed too moderate by the right of the party.

Once she got some exposure her fondness for the sort of views that play well with the right wing popular press made her a big hit and here we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top