FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > BBC To Apologise
BBC To Apologise
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon."
The only solution , brace yourself for a right wing meltdown |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
The only solution , brace yourself for a right wing meltdown "
It's not the ONLY solution but the one in which the BBC try to save themselves from what became of the situation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
The only solution , brace yourself for a right wing meltdown
It's not the ONLY solution but the one in which the BBC try to save themselves from what became of the situation."
Yep, it’s been a mess, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I can see that dues to the failure of the BBC to manage the situation, along with their brand leader's lack of tactical impartiality, the calls from a vocal minority for defunding the corporation will increase.
....and this comes at a critical time in funding negotiations.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
As far as I see, the BBC have not apologised to GL. The only apology is for lack of sporting content over the weekend.
GL has agreed to abide by current BBC policy, until an independent review has taken place. This review will detail use of social media etc.
Looks like a "Goldilocks" deal to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
I’m pleased they look to be backing down in this case as they were wrong in my opinion.
However I want the BBC to have the stomach for a fight with our government whatever their political colour. Huw edwards is being used in a government campaign for the immigration bill. Why is that allowed by the BBC ?
The BBC should put fear into our MPs and aggressively hold them up to scrutiny. It’s our independent corporation not the conservative or labour party’s.The three Tory senior figures should be pushed out.
Like the judiciary the senior appointments should be made independent of political influence.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They set themselves up for this, to be in a position where the current Chairman can't publicly comment on an issue like this is part of the problems already in house before Lineker tweeted what he did..
I think Sharp may step down before the independent review concludes his appointment was a mistake and the rules are now x,y and x with no grey areas.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Although I don't agree with Gary's tweet, he should have the right to free speech.
However the BBC have missed a chance to cut costs by getting rid of an overpaid pundit who doesn't add any value."
He does add value  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Although I don't agree with Gary's tweet, he should have the right to free speech.
However the BBC have missed a chance to cut costs by getting rid of a overpaid pundit who doesn't add any value."
I agree with your first point but on the second one of the most popular presenters in the country doesn’t add value? Is that just jealousy creeping in there? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Although I don't agree with Gary's tweet, he should have the right to free speech.
However the BBC have missed a chance to cut costs by getting rid of a overpaid pundit who doesn't add any value.
I agree with your first point but on the second one of the most popular presenters in the country doesn’t add value? Is that just jealousy creeping in there? "
He has admitted on another thread that he never watches MOTD |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
"
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
"
It only serves to further highlight the double standards they were operating in post Davie's new impartial era of three years ago..
Political appointees such as Sharp, Alan Sugar and other Tory supporting staff/freelance doing what Lineker did but no comeback was a recipe for this ..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech "
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Although I don't agree with Gary's tweet, he should have the right to free speech.
However the BBC have missed a chance to cut costs by getting rid of a overpaid pundit who doesn't add any value.
I agree with your first point but on the second one of the most popular presenters in the country doesn’t add value? Is that just jealousy creeping in there?
He has admitted on another thread that he never watches MOTD "
I don't. Football is shite and I can't understand why the BBC waste money covering it.
If you want to watch it, pay.
TV was dire a few weeks ago when there was football on 2 or 3 channels simultaneously. Don't know what tournament it was as I have no interest at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Although I don't agree with Gary's tweet, he should have the right to free speech.
However the BBC have missed a chance to cut costs by getting rid of a overpaid pundit who doesn't add any value.
I agree with your first point but on the second one of the most popular presenters in the country doesn’t add value? Is that just jealousy creeping in there?
He has admitted on another thread that he never watches MOTD
I don't. Football is shite and I can't understand why the BBC waste money covering it.
If you want to watch it, pay.
TV was dire a few weeks ago when there was football on 2 or 3 channels simultaneously. Don't know what tournament it was as I have no interest at all."
So how do you know Gary Lineker adds ‘no value’ ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
"
Let me know when that happens |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon."
I actually thought the Match of The Day programme on Saturday was better with no presenters, way forward I think. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens "
That may not happen but it does open the door for it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
I actually thought the Match of The Day programme on Saturday was better with no presenters, way forward I think. "
I actually thought it was shite |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it"
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
I actually thought the Match of The Day programme on Saturday was better with no presenters, way forward I think. "
It was awful, switched over after about three minutes..
Such things are very much in the eye of the beholder etc but when there's contracts involved such a format is not going to be acceptable long term.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
I actually thought the Match of The Day programme on Saturday was better with no presenters, way forward I think.
I actually thought it was shite "
Then why did you waste your time watching it ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals "
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals "
For arguments sake and to play out what I mean:
Alan Sheerer tweets:
Braverman is really thinking about our countries problem... Illegal entry by small boats! I'm loving what she has to say! We need to get tough on this, Rwanda seems the logical move to stop the mass ingress of illegals. Well done and looking forward to a safer UK.
Happy not happy, shout at the BBC, cancel Sheerer?
Play the scenario out for me being as honest as you can |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ill69888Couple
over a year ago
cheltenham |
Can the BBC apologise to the tax paying public for paying GL that amount of money for a football highlights programme, then sack him! Apparently MOTD had 500,000 more viewers at the weekend. These old has beens are clearly not required…. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
"
We need to be consistent.
1) BBC owned channels remain impartial, balanced, fact based (or should be).
2) Freelance people who do work for the BBC should be able to espouse their own views on anything through non BBC channels. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
"
If BBC presenters have that opinion, they should be allowed to express it.
It's up to us if we want to watch them. If you love football, but hate foreigners, don't watch MoTD.
If someone else comes out in support of Braverman, then it should be allowed, and ordinary people can choose to watch their show or not. Simple. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
For arguments sake and to play out what I mean:
Alan Sheerer tweets:
Braverman is really thinking about our countries problem... Illegal entry by small boats! I'm loving what she has to say! We need to get tough on this, Rwanda seems the logical move to stop the mass ingress of illegals. Well done and looking forward to a safer UK.
Happy not happy, shout at the BBC, cancel Sheerer?
Play the scenario out for me being as honest as you can"
I know you are not asking me (and I gave a reply to the original question) but clearly what you describe should be permitted.
I will tell you a difference though.
Clarkson’s comments on Meghan Markle. I would argue that was playing the ball not the man (see the tenuous Lineker link there). What he described was a personal attack, a hideous example of misogyny and quite frankly uncalled for.
If Lineker had said “Suella Braverman is a hideous dreadful example of all that is wrong in Britain. She is a Nazi!” Then THAT is not acceptable. He didn’t though. He focused on language being used in relation to a govt policy. I think that is fair enough. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
"
People form an opinion of that particular presenter.
News and politics presenters will not be able to, as is the case now. Except for prominent Conservative supporters. That, at least, may now change, I suppose. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Can the BBC apologise to the tax paying public for paying GL that amount of money for a football highlights programme, then sack him! Apparently MOTD had 500,000 more viewers at the weekend. These old has beens are clearly not required…."
They are required, have you heard the term ‘rubber necking’ ? You’re not being forced to watch MOTD |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
For arguments sake and to play out what I mean:
Alan Sheerer tweets:
Braverman is really thinking about our countries problem... Illegal entry by small boats! I'm loving what she has to say! We need to get tough on this, Rwanda seems the logical move to stop the mass ingress of illegals. Well done and looking forward to a safer UK.
Happy not happy, shout at the BBC, cancel Sheerer?
Play the scenario out for me being as honest as you can"
What if? The BBC got it wrong, they have apologised and GL will be back next weekend |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
For arguments sake and to play out what I mean:
Alan Sheerer tweets:
Braverman is really thinking about our countries problem... Illegal entry by small boats! I'm loving what she has to say! We need to get tough on this, Rwanda seems the logical move to stop the mass ingress of illegals. Well done and looking forward to a safer UK.
Happy not happy, shout at the BBC, cancel Sheerer?
Play the scenario out for me being as honest as you can"
It's fine, as long as it is not abusive.
People will form an opinion on that individual, not the BBC. As was the case with Lineker. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
We need to be consistent.
1) BBC owned channels remain impartial, balanced, fact based (or should be).
2) Freelance people who do work for the BBC should be able to espouse their own views on anything through non BBC channels."
2) I don't believe will happen, it might look like it on the surface.
I think the BBC will begin to look for presenters that are going to be less controversial, NDA them on their contracts and tighten the screw internally. It may lead to a fresh bunch of faces but only faces that wont rock the boat.
I have nothing other than gut feeling, time will prove if I'm right or wrong.
However, I think the thing that will happen first is an incident that will come from someone supporting the government to stress test the BBC's reaction to impartiality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker."
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter "
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?"
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi "
Clarkson (while at the BBC although I may be wrong) said in a newspaper column that “public sector workers who strike should be shot” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi "
As a Jewish man is he not in his rights to call out where he sees anti-Semitism?
I'm not looking for an answer to that! I'm making a point that most things can be turned around to someones advantage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi "
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
As a Jewish man is he not in his rights to call out where he sees anti-Semitism?
I'm not looking for an answer to that! I'm making a point that most things can be turned around to someones advantage."
So that was ok but Lineker politely drawing parallels between current UK govt rhetoric and 1930s Germany is not? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
Clarkson (while at the BBC although I may be wrong) said in a newspaper column that “public sector workers who strike should be shot”"
You're correct. That was on Top Gear. He said he would 'shoot them all in front of their families'. From what I've read, his co presenters apologised at the end of the show. No idea what action was taken behind the scenes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?"
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!"
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
Clarkson (while at the BBC although I may be wrong) said in a newspaper column that “public sector workers who strike should be shot”
You're correct. That was on Top Gear. He said he would 'shoot them all in front of their families'. From what I've read, his co presenters apologised at the end of the show. No idea what action was taken behind the scenes."
Ok so to ME, THAT is FAR MORE SERIOUS than what Lineker said. It incites violence and it is personal. It causes direct offence to all the public sector workers and their families.
Lineker made a comparison about language with no mention of any individual.
Surely people can see the difference? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
As a Jewish man is he not in his rights to call out where he sees anti-Semitism?
I'm not looking for an answer to that! I'm making a point that most things can be turned around to someones advantage.
So that was ok but Lineker politely drawing parallels between current UK govt rhetoric and 1930s Germany is not?"
You are making assumptions that I have presented a view on Lineker's tweet....
I have a view on how the BBC should be impartial but I have not shared my thoughts on his tweet.
It is all about balance, if people are happy for a voice to be heard in support of their own views, then it is only right and proper that opposition to their views should be allowed too.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
Clarkson (while at the BBC although I may be wrong) said in a newspaper column that “public sector workers who strike should be shot”
You're correct. That was on Top Gear. He said he would 'shoot them all in front of their families'. From what I've read, his co presenters apologised at the end of the show. No idea what action was taken behind the scenes.
Ok so to ME, THAT is FAR MORE SERIOUS than what Lineker said. It incites violence and it is personal. It causes direct offence to all the public sector workers and their families.
Lineker made a comparison about language with no mention of any individual.
Surely people can see the difference? "
Of course people can see the difference, do you know what the BBC did in response to that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused."
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
As a Jewish man is he not in his rights to call out where he sees anti-Semitism?
I'm not looking for an answer to that! I'm making a point that most things can be turned around to someones advantage.
So that was ok but Lineker politely drawing parallels between current UK govt rhetoric and 1930s Germany is not?
You are making assumptions that I have presented a view on Lineker's tweet....
I have a view on how the BBC should be impartial but I have not shared my thoughts on his tweet.
It is all about balance, if people are happy for a voice to be heard in support of their own views, then it is only right and proper that opposition to their views should be allowed too.
"
Agreed and already said so above. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
Clarkson (while at the BBC although I may be wrong) said in a newspaper column that “public sector workers who strike should be shot”
You're correct. That was on Top Gear. He said he would 'shoot them all in front of their families'. From what I've read, his co presenters apologised at the end of the show. No idea what action was taken behind the scenes.
Ok so to ME, THAT is FAR MORE SERIOUS than what Lineker said. It incites violence and it is personal. It causes direct offence to all the public sector workers and their families.
Lineker made a comparison about language with no mention of any individual.
Surely people can see the difference?
Of course people can see the difference, do you
know what the BBC did in response to that?"
The BBC did nothing |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
Clarkson (while at the BBC although I may be wrong) said in a newspaper column that “public sector workers who strike should be shot”
You're correct. That was on Top Gear. He said he would 'shoot them all in front of their families'. From what I've read, his co presenters apologised at the end of the show. No idea what action was taken behind the scenes.
Ok so to ME, THAT is FAR MORE SERIOUS than what Lineker said. It incites violence and it is personal. It causes direct offence to all the public sector workers and their families.
Lineker made a comparison about language with no mention of any individual.
Surely people can see the difference?
Of course people can see the difference, do you
know what the BBC did in response to that?
The BBC did nothing "
Are you sure? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language. "
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
Clarkson (while at the BBC although I may be wrong) said in a newspaper column that “public sector workers who strike should be shot”
You're correct. That was on Top Gear. He said he would 'shoot them all in front of their families'. From what I've read, his co presenters apologised at the end of the show. No idea what action was taken behind the scenes.
Ok so to ME, THAT is FAR MORE SERIOUS than what Lineker said. It incites violence and it is personal. It causes direct offence to all the public sector workers and their families.
Lineker made a comparison about language with no mention of any individual.
Surely people can see the difference?
Of course people can see the difference, do you
know what the BBC did in response to that?
The BBC did nothing
Are you sure?"
Yes, unless you can show me otherwise, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
Clarkson (while at the BBC although I may be wrong) said in a newspaper column that “public sector workers who strike should be shot”
You're correct. That was on Top Gear. He said he would 'shoot them all in front of their families'. From what I've read, his co presenters apologised at the end of the show. No idea what action was taken behind the scenes.
Ok so to ME, THAT is FAR MORE SERIOUS than what Lineker said. It incites violence and it is personal. It causes direct offence to all the public sector workers and their families.
Lineker made a comparison about language with no mention of any individual.
Surely people can see the difference?
Of course people can see the difference, do you
know what the BBC did in response to that?
The BBC did nothing
Are you sure?
Yes, unless you can show me otherwise, "
You're not actually sure are you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
Clarkson (while at the BBC although I may be wrong) said in a newspaper column that “public sector workers who strike should be shot”
You're correct. That was on Top Gear. He said he would 'shoot them all in front of their families'. From what I've read, his co presenters apologised at the end of the show. No idea what action was taken behind the scenes.
Ok so to ME, THAT is FAR MORE SERIOUS than what Lineker said. It incites violence and it is personal. It causes direct offence to all the public sector workers and their families.
Lineker made a comparison about language with no mention of any individual.
Surely people can see the difference?
Of course people can see the difference, do you
know what the BBC did in response to that?
The BBC did nothing
Are you sure?
Yes, unless you can show me otherwise,
You're not actually sure are you? "
I have read articles on the issue, no public record of the BBC getting involved, feel free to prove me wrong |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
Clarkson (while at the BBC although I may be wrong) said in a newspaper column that “public sector workers who strike should be shot”
You're correct. That was on Top Gear. He said he would 'shoot them all in front of their families'. From what I've read, his co presenters apologised at the end of the show. No idea what action was taken behind the scenes.
Ok so to ME, THAT is FAR MORE SERIOUS than what Lineker said. It incites violence and it is personal. It causes direct offence to all the public sector workers and their families.
Lineker made a comparison about language with no mention of any individual.
Surely people can see the difference?
Of course people can see the difference, do you
know what the BBC did in response to that?
The BBC did nothing
Are you sure?
Yes, unless you can show me otherwise,
You're not actually sure are you?
I have read articles on the issue, no public record of the BBC getting involved, feel free to prove me wrong "
I'm not trying to prove you wrong. You made the claim, prove it.
I've already said above I have no idea what action was taken behind the scenes. I know Clarkson apologised but that's it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
Clarkson (while at the BBC although I may be wrong) said in a newspaper column that “public sector workers who strike should be shot”
You're correct. That was on Top Gear. He said he would 'shoot them all in front of their families'. From what I've read, his co presenters apologised at the end of the show. No idea what action was taken behind the scenes."
None given he stayed on air for five years.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
Clarkson (while at the BBC although I may be wrong) said in a newspaper column that “public sector workers who strike should be shot”
You're correct. That was on Top Gear. He said he would 'shoot them all in front of their families'. From what I've read, his co presenters apologised at the end of the show. No idea what action was taken behind the scenes.
None given he stayed on air for five years.."
That doesn't mean no action was taken. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language. "
**** the below is not about Lineker's tweet***
What is the difference between someone typing their feelings on a policy or how something is being presented and saying it is the same way Hitler and the nazi's took power, and a picture of a person next to Hitler to represent that persons leaning towards Hitler and nazi's? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news."
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?"
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
Clarkson (while at the BBC although I may be wrong) said in a newspaper column that “public sector workers who strike should be shot”
You're correct. That was on Top Gear. He said he would 'shoot them all in front of their families'. From what I've read, his co presenters apologised at the end of the show. No idea what action was taken behind the scenes.
None given he stayed on air for five years..
That doesn't mean no action was taken."
He want treated the same as Lineker has just been though..
Nor was Sugar ..
Hence they set themselves up for the criticism duly applied since last week..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
**** the below is not about Lineker's tweet***
What is the difference between someone typing their feelings on a policy or how something is being presented and saying it is the same way Hitler and the nazi's took power, and a picture of a person next to Hitler to represent that persons leaning towards Hitler and nazi's?"
Why are you changing tack away from the topic in hand (ie not Lineker tweet)? Who has said the first point in your question and why are they being compared to Alan Sugar’s tweet? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
Clarkson (while at the BBC although I may be wrong) said in a newspaper column that “public sector workers who strike should be shot”
You're correct. That was on Top Gear. He said he would 'shoot them all in front of their families'. From what I've read, his co presenters apologised at the end of the show. No idea what action was taken behind the scenes.
None given he stayed on air for five years..
That doesn't mean no action was taken.
He want treated the same as Lineker has just been though..
Nor was Sugar ..
Hence they set themselves up for the criticism duly applied since last week..
"
Gary refused to delete or apologise. We can't compare because it's not the same thing.
Try comparing apples with apples and we may be able to agree on some things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
"
I still do not see the point you are trying to make? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?"
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
**** the below is not about Lineker's tweet***
What is the difference between someone typing their feelings on a policy or how something is being presented and saying it is the same way Hitler and the nazi's took power, and a picture of a person next to Hitler to represent that persons leaning towards Hitler and nazi's?
Why are you changing tack away from the topic in hand (ie not Lineker tweet)? Who has said the first point in your question and why are they being compared to Alan Sugar’s tweet?"
Sorry you have lost me...
I was curious to know why a doctored image of someone next to Hitler, to represent leanings towards nazi views is different from writing it.
I see it in here often, yet is very rarely challenged, you indicated that Sugar's image should be taken down, hence the question.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
Clarkson (while at the BBC although I may be wrong) said in a newspaper column that “public sector workers who strike should be shot”
You're correct. That was on Top Gear. He said he would 'shoot them all in front of their families'. From what I've read, his co presenters apologised at the end of the show. No idea what action was taken behind the scenes.
None given he stayed on air for five years..
That doesn't mean no action was taken.
He want treated the same as Lineker has just been though..
Nor was Sugar ..
Hence they set themselves up for the criticism duly applied since last week..
Gary refused to delete or apologise. We can't compare because it's not the same thing.
Try comparing apples with apples and we may be able to agree on some things."
That's ok, I'm fine with not agreeing with you on this..
Unless if course you think everyone should agree with you then I'm really not fine with that.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?"
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
**** the below is not about Lineker's tweet***
What is the difference between someone typing their feelings on a policy or how something is being presented and saying it is the same way Hitler and the nazi's took power, and a picture of a person next to Hitler to represent that persons leaning towards Hitler and nazi's?
Why are you changing tack away from the topic in hand (ie not Lineker tweet)? Who has said the first point in your question and why are they being compared to Alan Sugar’s tweet?
Sorry you have lost me...
I was curious to know why a doctored image of someone next to Hitler, to represent leanings towards nazi views is different from writing it.
I see it in here often, yet is very rarely challenged, you indicated that Sugar's image should be taken down, hence the question.
"
... because the words did not imply Nazi views unless you intend to grossly simplify and exaggerate.
It's what allows such views to be expressed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent."
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
**** the below is not about Lineker's tweet***
What is the difference between someone typing their feelings on a policy or how something is being presented and saying it is the same way Hitler and the nazi's took power, and a picture of a person next to Hitler to represent that persons leaning towards Hitler and nazi's?
Why are you changing tack away from the topic in hand (ie not Lineker tweet)? Who has said the first point in your question and why are they being compared to Alan Sugar’s tweet?
Sorry you have lost me...
I was curious to know why a doctored image of someone next to Hitler, to represent leanings towards nazi views is different from writing it.
I see it in here often, yet is very rarely challenged, you indicated that Sugar's image should be taken down, hence the question.
"
Posting that picture could very easily have resulted in a defamation court case. A high profile individual with influence and a significant following is simply not the same as one of ys Johnny nobodies posting our opinions in a closed (members only) discussion forum. Seriously, you know the difference right  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
Clarkson (while at the BBC although I may be wrong) said in a newspaper column that “public sector workers who strike should be shot”
You're correct. That was on Top Gear. He said he would 'shoot them all in front of their families'. From what I've read, his co presenters apologised at the end of the show. No idea what action was taken behind the scenes.
None given he stayed on air for five years..
That doesn't mean no action was taken.
He want treated the same as Lineker has just been though..
Nor was Sugar ..
Hence they set themselves up for the criticism duly applied since last week..
Gary refused to delete or apologise. We can't compare because it's not the same thing.
Try comparing apples with apples and we may be able to agree on some things.
That's ok, I'm fine with not agreeing with you on this..
Unless if course you think everyone should agree with you then I'm really not fine with that.."
Do you even know what you're disagreeing with? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences."
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
**** the below is not about Lineker's tweet***
What is the difference between someone typing their feelings on a policy or how something is being presented and saying it is the same way Hitler and the nazi's took power, and a picture of a person next to Hitler to represent that persons leaning towards Hitler and nazi's?
Why are you changing tack away from the topic in hand (ie not Lineker tweet)? Who has said the first point in your question and why are they being compared to Alan Sugar’s tweet?
Sorry you have lost me...
I was curious to know why a doctored image of someone next to Hitler, to represent leanings towards nazi views is different from writing it.
I see it in here often, yet is very rarely challenged, you indicated that Sugar's image should be taken down, hence the question.
Posting that picture could very easily have resulted in a defamation court case. A high profile individual with influence and a significant following is simply not the same as one of ys Johnny nobodies posting our opinions in a closed (members only) discussion forum. Seriously, you know the difference right "
I'm not making myself clear to you..
Corbyn loses whip and found to be in breach of the equality act for not addressing a anti-semitism in the Labour party.
Is it okay for Sugar as a Jewish man to write a tweet stating Corbyn and Hitler are one of the same, Corbyn is no better than and is a sympathiser of the nazi's?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws."
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
**** the below is not about Lineker's tweet***
What is the difference between someone typing their feelings on a policy or how something is being presented and saying it is the same way Hitler and the nazi's took power, and a picture of a person next to Hitler to represent that persons leaning towards Hitler and nazi's?
Why are you changing tack away from the topic in hand (ie not Lineker tweet)? Who has said the first point in your question and why are they being compared to Alan Sugar’s tweet?
Sorry you have lost me...
I was curious to know why a doctored image of someone next to Hitler, to represent leanings towards nazi views is different from writing it.
I see it in here often, yet is very rarely challenged, you indicated that Sugar's image should be taken down, hence the question.
Posting that picture could very easily have resulted in a defamation court case. A high profile individual with influence and a significant following is simply not the same as one of ys Johnny nobodies posting our opinions in a closed (members only) discussion forum. Seriously, you know the difference right
I'm not making myself clear to you..
Corbyn loses whip and found to be in breach of the equality act for not addressing a anti-semitism in the Labour party.
Is it okay for Sugar as a Jewish man to write a tweet stating Corbyn and Hitler are one of the same, Corbyn is no better than and is a sympathiser of the nazi's?
"
No it is not ok because Corbyn clearly is/was not one and the same with Hitler. The latter was responsible for the death of millions of people. The former absolutely needed to take action against anti-semitism and failed but I am not aware of him being responsible for mass murder, ethnic cleansing or starting a World War! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place."
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument."
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"How can you have an impartial BBC funded by everyone from all political leanings if only one point of view is the right one?"
You need to give airspace to all views to ensure balance and base discussion on facts not hyperbole.
The challenge though us whether you give equal airtime to all views?
So if 50 people believe X but 65million people believe Y do you give them equal coverage? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
"
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence."
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The BBC has set itself up for a fall.
Previous complaints to the BBC were rejected as the person who tried was a freelancer.
Even if they changed the rules, there's a suggestion they hadn't changed linekar's contact (strictly speaking the contract with linekar's company).
Finally, they'd be at risk of being sites as linekar wild challenge they didn't have a fair and equally applied SM monitoring approach.
And that's before you unpick the BBC's wider conflict. Is it proportional to suspend over a tweet breaking impartiality... When you're top dog has two investigations that his appointment was conflicted.
I suspect the BBC's current SM policy is at risk of being challenged. How much can you police any employees non-work activities? The beeb have a challenge to manage others don't given impartiality rules. Silencing isn't the answer imo. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
**** the below is not about Lineker's tweet***
What is the difference between someone typing their feelings on a policy or how something is being presented and saying it is the same way Hitler and the nazi's took power, and a picture of a person next to Hitler to represent that persons leaning towards Hitler and nazi's?
Why are you changing tack away from the topic in hand (ie not Lineker tweet)? Who has said the first point in your question and why are they being compared to Alan Sugar’s tweet?
Sorry you have lost me...
I was curious to know why a doctored image of someone next to Hitler, to represent leanings towards nazi views is different from writing it.
I see it in here often, yet is very rarely challenged, you indicated that Sugar's image should be taken down, hence the question.
Posting that picture could very easily have resulted in a defamation court case. A high profile individual with influence and a significant following is simply not the same as one of ys Johnny nobodies posting our opinions in a closed (members only) discussion forum. Seriously, you know the difference right
I'm not making myself clear to you..
Corbyn loses whip and found to be in breach of the equality act for not addressing a anti-semitism in the Labour party.
Is it okay for Sugar as a Jewish man to write a tweet stating Corbyn and Hitler are one of the same, Corbyn is no better than and is a sympathiser of the nazi's?
"
Alan Sugars tweet was in 2018 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence.
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that."
Except clearly he didn’t and as far as I know he hasn’t?
And it appears the BBC has accepted that freelancers working for the BBC are entitled to espouse personal non-impartial views through non-BBC channels so...what is your point? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence.
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that.
Except clearly he didn’t and as far as I know he hasn’t?
And it appears the BBC has accepted that freelancers working for the BBC are entitled to espouse personal non-impartial views through non-BBC channels so...what is your point?"
I don't think the BBC have accepted that. The rules will now be tightened. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place."
The BBC have not asked him to step back because he refused to take the Tweet down. You are adding your own interpretation. The discussion is exactly about what he can and cannot post.
"The BBC has been in extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days. We have said we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines. The BBC has decided that he will step back from presenting Match of the Day until we've got an agreed and clear position on his use of social media. When it comes to leading our football and sports coverage, Gary is second to none. We have never said that Gary should be an opinion free zone, or that he can't have a view on issues that matter to him but we have said that he should keep well away from taking sides on party political issues or political controversies."
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/showbiz-tv/full-bbc-statement-gary-lineker-26444878 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence.
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that.
Except clearly he didn’t and as far as I know he hasn’t?
And it appears the BBC has accepted that freelancers working for the BBC are entitled to espouse personal non-impartial views through non-BBC channels so...what is your point?
I don't think the BBC have accepted that. The rules will now be tightened."
So you accept the proportionality argument?
They clearly need tighten up rules. It will be interesting to see how far the BBC think they should be able to control the activity/beliefs/opinions of freelancers that happen beyond the channels they control. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence.
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that.
Except clearly he didn’t and as far as I know he hasn’t?
And it appears the BBC has accepted that freelancers working for the BBC are entitled to espouse personal non-impartial views through non-BBC channels so...what is your point?
I don't think the BBC have accepted that. The rules will now be tightened."
When did they say they would be ‘tightened’ ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence.
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that.
Except clearly he didn’t and as far as I know he hasn’t?
And it appears the BBC has accepted that freelancers working for the BBC are entitled to espouse personal non-impartial views through non-BBC channels so...what is your point?
I don't think the BBC have accepted that. The rules will now be tightened."
Again, this is not true. The BBC have not said that anything will be "tightened". They could equally be "loosened".
"The BBC will launch an independent review of its social media guideline, although who will lead this review is yet to be revealed
It will place a particular focus on how the guidance applies to freelancers outside the corporation's news coverage, like Lineker"
"The head of the BBC has also acknowledged "grey areas" in the current guidelines - introduced in 2020
Lineker has agreed to stick to the current guidelines while this review is carried out - but what this will mean in practice is not clear" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
The BBC have not asked him to step back because he refused to take the Tweet down. You are adding your own interpretation. The discussion is exactly about what he can and cannot post.
"The BBC has been in extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days. We have said we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines. The BBC has decided that he will step back from presenting Match of the Day until we've got an agreed and clear position on his use of social media. When it comes to leading our football and sports coverage, Gary is second to none. We have never said that Gary should be an opinion free zone, or that he can't have a view on issues that matter to him but we have said that he should keep well away from taking sides on party political issues or political controversies."
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/showbiz-tv/full-bbc-statement-gary-lineker-26444878"
I also said the likelihood is he wouldn't have been asked to step back if he had removed the tweet.
Which is what happened in other cases.
Why are you so insistent on taking just certain words that people say to try to show them up?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence.
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that.
Except clearly he didn’t and as far as I know he hasn’t?
And it appears the BBC has accepted that freelancers working for the BBC are entitled to espouse personal non-impartial views through non-BBC channels so...what is your point?
I don't think the BBC have accepted that. The rules will now be tightened.
So you accept the proportionality argument?
They clearly need tighten up rules. It will be interesting to see how far the BBC think they should be able to control the activity/beliefs/opinions of freelancers that happen beyond the channels they control."
They do not need to be "tightened", they need to be clarified. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence.
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that.
Except clearly he didn’t and as far as I know he hasn’t?
And it appears the BBC has accepted that freelancers working for the BBC are entitled to espouse personal non-impartial views through non-BBC channels so...what is your point?
I don't think the BBC have accepted that. The rules will now be tightened."
seems like they have accepted that as things stand, Linekar didn't break the rules (for whatever reason). But will decide if the rules work.
It's not clear imo of they u turned because he's a free lancer, hadn't changed the terms of contract (so current rules didn't apply to him), or because they couldn't quantity what "additional responsibility to the BBC means" I suspect all three combined to this fuck up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence.
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that.
Except clearly he didn’t and as far as I know he hasn’t?
And it appears the BBC has accepted that freelancers working for the BBC are entitled to espouse personal non-impartial views through non-BBC channels so...what is your point?
I don't think the BBC have accepted that. The rules will now be tightened.
When did they say they would be ‘tightened’ ? "
I may have misinterpreted your description of ‘tightened’ , to clarify , I don’t think Gary Lineker would accept a return if he thought his tweets will be stopped |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence.
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that.
Except clearly he didn’t and as far as I know he hasn’t?
And it appears the BBC has accepted that freelancers working for the BBC are entitled to espouse personal non-impartial views through non-BBC channels so...what is your point?
I don't think the BBC have accepted that. The rules will now be tightened.
Again, this is not true. The BBC have not said that anything will be "tightened". They could equally be "loosened".
"The BBC will launch an independent review of its social media guideline, although who will lead this review is yet to be revealed
It will place a particular focus on how the guidance applies to freelancers outside the corporation's news coverage, like Lineker"
"The head of the BBC has also acknowledged "grey areas" in the current guidelines - introduced in 2020
Lineker has agreed to stick to the current guidelines while this review is carried out - but what this will mean in practice is not clear""
I didn't say it was true. That's opinion, and clearly opinion.
If you're going to follow me round trying to pick apart what I've said, at least get it right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence.
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that.
Except clearly he didn’t and as far as I know he hasn’t?
And it appears the BBC has accepted that freelancers working for the BBC are entitled to espouse personal non-impartial views through non-BBC channels so...what is your point?
I don't think the BBC have accepted that. The rules will now be tightened.
So you accept the proportionality argument?
They clearly need tighten up rules. It will be interesting to see how far the BBC think they should be able to control the activity/beliefs/opinions of freelancers that happen beyond the channels they control.
They do not need to be "tightened", they need to be clarified."
Clarified is indeed a better and more appropriate word |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence.
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that.
Except clearly he didn’t and as far as I know he hasn’t?
And it appears the BBC has accepted that freelancers working for the BBC are entitled to espouse personal non-impartial views through non-BBC channels so...what is your point?
I don't think the BBC have accepted that. The rules will now be tightened.
So you accept the proportionality argument?
They clearly need tighten up rules. It will be interesting to see how far the BBC think they should be able to control the activity/beliefs/opinions of freelancers that happen beyond the channels they control.
They do not need to be "tightened", they need to be clarified.
Clarified is indeed a better and more appropriate word "
I started a whole thread on language  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence.
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that.
Except clearly he didn’t and as far as I know he hasn’t?
And it appears the BBC has accepted that freelancers working for the BBC are entitled to espouse personal non-impartial views through non-BBC channels so...what is your point?
I don't think the BBC have accepted that. The rules will now be tightened.
When did they say they would be ‘tightened’ ? "
They didn't. They said there will be a review. After that, they'll tighten them. I guess I need to add 'in my opinion' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence.
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that.
Except clearly he didn’t and as far as I know he hasn’t?
And it appears the BBC has accepted that freelancers working for the BBC are entitled to espouse personal non-impartial views through non-BBC channels so...what is your point?
I don't think the BBC have accepted that. The rules will now be tightened.
Again, this is not true. The BBC have not said that anything will be "tightened". They could equally be "loosened".
"The BBC will launch an independent review of its social media guideline, although who will lead this review is yet to be revealed
It will place a particular focus on how the guidance applies to freelancers outside the corporation's news coverage, like Lineker"
"The head of the BBC has also acknowledged "grey areas" in the current guidelines - introduced in 2020
Lineker has agreed to stick to the current guidelines while this review is carried out - but what this will mean in practice is not clear"
I didn't say it was true. That's opinion, and clearly opinion.
If you're going to follow me round trying to pick apart what I've said, at least get it right."
"The rules will now be tightened." is not opinion, it is a statement of fact.
Don't die in that ditch. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence.
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that.
Except clearly he didn’t and as far as I know he hasn’t?
And it appears the BBC has accepted that freelancers working for the BBC are entitled to espouse personal non-impartial views through non-BBC channels so...what is your point?
I don't think the BBC have accepted that. The rules will now be tightened.
Again, this is not true. The BBC have not said that anything will be "tightened". They could equally be "loosened".
"The BBC will launch an independent review of its social media guideline, although who will lead this review is yet to be revealed
It will place a particular focus on how the guidance applies to freelancers outside the corporation's news coverage, like Lineker"
"The head of the BBC has also acknowledged "grey areas" in the current guidelines - introduced in 2020
Lineker has agreed to stick to the current guidelines while this review is carried out - but what this will mean in practice is not clear"
I didn't say it was true. That's opinion, and clearly opinion.
If you're going to follow me round trying to pick apart what I've said, at least get it right.
"The rules will now be tightened." is not opinion, it is a statement of fact.
Don't die in that ditch."
Statement of fact
I can make a statement of opinion.
Why are you talking about people dying? Bit strange when you're trying to be the champion of 'language used' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence.
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that.
Except clearly he didn’t and as far as I know he hasn’t?
And it appears the BBC has accepted that freelancers working for the BBC are entitled to espouse personal non-impartial views through non-BBC channels so...what is your point?
I don't think the BBC have accepted that. The rules will now be tightened.
Again, this is not true. The BBC have not said that anything will be "tightened". They could equally be "loosened".
"The BBC will launch an independent review of its social media guideline, although who will lead this review is yet to be revealed
It will place a particular focus on how the guidance applies to freelancers outside the corporation's news coverage, like Lineker"
"The head of the BBC has also acknowledged "grey areas" in the current guidelines - introduced in 2020
Lineker has agreed to stick to the current guidelines while this review is carried out - but what this will mean in practice is not clear"
I didn't say it was true. That's opinion, and clearly opinion.
If you're going to follow me round trying to pick apart what I've said, at least get it right.
"The rules will now be tightened." is not opinion, it is a statement of fact.
Don't die in that ditch.
Statement of fact
I can make a statement of opinion.
Why are you talking about people dying? Bit strange when you're trying to be the champion of 'language used'"
For clarity (and pedantry), if you were offering an opinion you would write: "The rules should now be tightened"
"Don't die in that ditch" is a well known English idiom to indicate fighting to the death. I was indicating that it is not worth expending so much credibility wanting to appear correct of a triviality that is so transparently wrong that multiple people have questioned it.
You are welcome  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence.
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that.
Except clearly he didn’t and as far as I know he hasn’t?
And it appears the BBC has accepted that freelancers working for the BBC are entitled to espouse personal non-impartial views through non-BBC channels so...what is your point?
I don't think the BBC have accepted that. The rules will now be tightened.
Again, this is not true. The BBC have not said that anything will be "tightened". They could equally be "loosened".
"The BBC will launch an independent review of its social media guideline, although who will lead this review is yet to be revealed
It will place a particular focus on how the guidance applies to freelancers outside the corporation's news coverage, like Lineker"
"The head of the BBC has also acknowledged "grey areas" in the current guidelines - introduced in 2020
Lineker has agreed to stick to the current guidelines while this review is carried out - but what this will mean in practice is not clear"
I didn't say it was true. That's opinion, and clearly opinion.
If you're going to follow me round trying to pick apart what I've said, at least get it right.
"The rules will now be tightened." is not opinion, it is a statement of fact.
Don't die in that ditch.
Statement of fact
I can make a statement of opinion.
Why are you talking about people dying? Bit strange when you're trying to be the champion of 'language used'
For clarity (and pedantry), if you were offering an opinion you would write: "The rules should now be tightened"
"Don't die in that ditch" is a well known English idiom to indicate fighting to the death. I was indicating that it is not worth expending so much credibility wanting to appear correct of a triviality that is so transparently wrong that multiple people have questioned it.
You are welcome "
The only people who have questioned it are the exact people who I thought would.
You carry on with your pedantry and ill carry on being me.
You're welcome |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"More reported details of the agreement that will see Gary Lineker resume his presenting duties are emerging.
According to the i newspaper, the terms of the deal mean he will be allowed to continue tweeting about politics with "no restrictions".
If confirmed, this would represent a major climbdown from BBC leadership, following an outpouring of strong criticism over their actions since last week.
A great result for Gary Linaker and for freedom of speech
Really? Now what happens when a BBC presenter tweets support of Braverman's policies or language?
Let me know when that happens
That may not happen but it does open the door for it
Depends who it is and what they say, it is difficult to comment on hypotheticals
If someone said 'I'm in favour of Bravermans plans, you dont like the way she computes it, but i personally dont see an issue'. It now won't matter who they are, if they are a freelancer, they are effectively no different to Lineker.
Freelancer have already posted far worse on Twitter
Did the BBC do anything about it when these far worse tweets were posted?
No , Alan Sugar posted a photo of Corbyn as a Nazi
He did. Which he deleted. Wasn't the BBCs problem over this, that Gary refused to delete?
Oh that’s ok then. Changed his mind. Sorry for the offence caused but no harm done hey?
Come on really?
We either accept freelancers have a right to express their own views on/in channels not owned by the BBC or we don’t. Can’t be ok for some but not others!
I didn't say it was OK. Its not the same though, Lord sugar removed his tweet, Gary Lineker refused.
One was morally repugnant and offensive to an individual and probably could have resulted in a court case. The other was a general criticism of the use of language.
So not the same then?
You're not comparing apples with apples.
As I've already said, Gary refused to delete the tweet. If he had, this probably would never have even made big news.
I am saying damn right Sugar needed to delete his tweet (otherwise he could have faced a defamation law suit).
Lineker didn’t need to delete his tweet. It wasn’t personal or offensive about an individual.
Not sure what you are getting at if you can’t see that?
And there I was thinking this started about how the BBC will now treat others if they've backed down on GL.
Rightly or wrongly isn't the question here.
Lord Sugar deleted his tweet, Gary Lineker didn't.
I still do not see the point you are trying to make?
You're getting worse.
The point is they cannot be compared because they aren't the same thing.
We are talking about how the BBC have handled Gary aren't we?
We are talking about proportionate response and handling of the situation. Things like Sugar or Clarkson past behaviour sets precedent. Neither got taken off air. Lineker did. Both their actions/what they said were worse than Lineker's.
It is the same with the UK legal system which is all based on case law and precedent.
The precedent was set when they both retracted and apologised. Something which Gary refused to do. I've said since the start of this, that is his right. He does not have a right to be free from consequences.
It is called personification. Sugar posted a picture of a real person (Corbyn) and Hitler and had he not removed would likely have faced a defamation court case. Clarkson caused personal offence to all public sector workers and their families by arguably inciting or justifying killing them. Lineker said the Govt are using language that is reflective of an evil time in history.
Are you really trying to say these are proportionately the same? Which individual did Lineker defame? Which individual did he incite violence against?
Sorry feisty but you need to stop clutching at straws.
I'm not clutching at anything here.
I'm asking that we compare apples with apples.
The BBC pulled Gary from MOTD because he refused to take the tweet down, not because he posted it in the first place.
Which clearly wasn’t proportionate or took account of precedent. It is an empty argument.
What precedent? The one in which those other individuals retracted? Something which Gary refused.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
Had Gary retracted, the likelihood is that he wouldn't have been take off air.
Sigh - Lineker did not need to retract in comparison to Sugar or Clarkson for reasons I have already given. They are not proportionate. He had not defamed anyone or incited/justified violence.
But he did need to retract to stay on air. They don't need to be proportionate. It's not hard to understand that.
Except clearly he didn’t and as far as I know he hasn’t?
And it appears the BBC has accepted that freelancers working for the BBC are entitled to espouse personal non-impartial views through non-BBC channels so...what is your point?
I don't think the BBC have accepted that. The rules will now be tightened.
Again, this is not true. The BBC have not said that anything will be "tightened". They could equally be "loosened".
"The BBC will launch an independent review of its social media guideline, although who will lead this review is yet to be revealed
It will place a particular focus on how the guidance applies to freelancers outside the corporation's news coverage, like Lineker"
"The head of the BBC has also acknowledged "grey areas" in the current guidelines - introduced in 2020
Lineker has agreed to stick to the current guidelines while this review is carried out - but what this will mean in practice is not clear"
I didn't say it was true. That's opinion, and clearly opinion.
If you're going to follow me round trying to pick apart what I've said, at least get it right.
"The rules will now be tightened." is not opinion, it is a statement of fact.
Don't die in that ditch.
Statement of fact
I can make a statement of opinion.
Why are you talking about people dying? Bit strange when you're trying to be the champion of 'language used'
For clarity (and pedantry), if you were offering an opinion you would write: "The rules should now be tightened"
"Don't die in that ditch" is a well known English idiom to indicate fighting to the death. I was indicating that it is not worth expending so much credibility wanting to appear correct of a triviality that is so transparently wrong that multiple people have questioned it.
You are welcome
The only people who have questioned it are the exact people who I thought would.
You carry on with your pedantry and ill carry on being me.
You're welcome "
Clever you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
did the BBC chair, Richard Sharp, say anything at all over the Lineker saga?
Feels like he's been keeping his head well & truly down because he knows the obvious question will be: how on Earth can he be impartial when he donated 400k to the Tories & helped arrange n 800k loan for Johnson before Johnson basically gaave him the job? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"did the BBC chair, Richard Sharp, say anything at all over the Lineker saga?
Feels like he's been keeping his head well & truly down because he knows the obvious question will be: how on Earth can he be impartial when he donated 400k to the Tories & helped arrange n 800k loan for Johnson before Johnson basically gaave him the job?"
Ironically Lineker’s whole “saga” has shone that very spotlight on the BBC. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"did the BBC chair, Richard Sharp, say anything at all over the Lineker saga?
Feels like he's been keeping his head well & truly down because he knows the obvious question will be: how on Earth can he be impartial when he donated 400k to the Tories & helped arrange n 800k loan for Johnson before Johnson basically gaave him the job?
Ironically Lineker’s whole “saga” has shone that very spotlight on the BBC."
And it's shone a spotlight on Tory influence of the BBC. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
“We are announcing a review led by an independent expert - reporting to the BBC - on its existing social media guidance, with a particular focus on how it applies to freelancers outside news and current affairs. The BBC and myself are aware that Gary is in favour of such a review.
"Shortly, the BBC will announce who will conduct that review. Whilst this work is undertaken, the BBC's current social media guidance remains in place.”
I hear Sue Grey may have a bit of capacity before starting her new role |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"“We are announcing a review led by an independent expert - reporting to the BBC - on its existing social media guidance, with a particular focus on how it applies to freelancers outside news and current affairs. The BBC and myself are aware that Gary is in favour of such a review.
"Shortly, the BBC will announce who will conduct that review. Whilst this work is undertaken, the BBC's current social media guidance remains in place.”
I hear Sue Grey may have a bit of capacity before starting her new role "
Lineker will want Elon Musk to conduct the review I'm sure...
In the meantime I think if Braverman has anything else she wants to get out in the public domain, now is the time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *essiCouple
over a year ago
suffolk |
"Although I don't agree with Gary's tweet, he should have the right to free speech.
However the BBC have missed a chance to cut costs by getting rid of a overpaid pundit who doesn't add any value."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
Ah, look the bus has just pulled up for the BBC Chairman.
"Rishi Sunak declines to back BBC chairman Richard Sharp"
https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-declines-to-back-bbc-chairman-richard-sharp-12832441 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ah, look the bus has just pulled up for the BBC Chairman.
"Rishi Sunak declines to back BBC chairman Richard Sharp"
https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-declines-to-back-bbc-chairman-richard-sharp-12832441"
Surely Rishi has said exactly what he needs to say?
I'm paraphrasing here for clarity,
'This is something they need to deal with from within the organisation' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Ah, look the bus has just pulled up for the BBC Chairman.
"Rishi Sunak declines to back BBC chairman Richard Sharp"
https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-declines-to-back-bbc-chairman-richard-sharp-12832441
Surely Rishi has said exactly what he needs to say?
I'm paraphrasing here for clarity,
'This is something they need to deal with from within the organisation'"
But surely the problem here is that his predecessor +1 and former boss politicised and compromised the position of Chair of the BBC? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Gary Lineker should stick to doing walkers crisps ads about the only thing he’s good at "
Seems to have been pretty good at getting a spotlight shined on the BBC and Govt asylum seeker/small boat policy this past week! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago
the land of saints & sinners |
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
The only solution , brace yourself for a right wing meltdown "
It’s started with Tory MP Philip Davies and JMR jumping in with their comments…. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
The only solution , brace yourself for a right wing meltdown
It’s started with Tory MP Philip Davies and JMR jumping in with their comments…."
That's quite amusing.
The right wing meltdown about Lineker brought a bigger spotlight on the immigration policy and on the somewhat corrupt appointment of right-leaning BBC senior management as well as previous treatment of right-leaning BBC presenters.
Yet they are back again, drawing even more attention... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
The only solution , brace yourself for a right wing meltdown
It’s started with Tory MP Philip Davies and JMR jumping in with their comments….
That's quite amusing.
The right wing meltdown about Lineker brought a bigger spotlight on the immigration policy and on the somewhat corrupt appointment of right-leaning BBC senior management as well as previous treatment of right-leaning BBC presenters.
Yet they are back again, drawing even more attention..."
Seems impressively stupid of them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
This could end with the compromised BBC Chair having to resign. At this point, you'd think certain people would realise it's in their interest to just stop chasing this 1. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Guru Murphy on twitter:
Labour, Liberal Democrats and SNP all now saying Richard Sharp must resign as BBC Chairman. Mr Sharp has not done any interviews or appearances and is now being represented by an external comms agency.
Sounds like the BBC Chair is hiding, just hoping it all goes away & nobody gets to ask him v difficult questions... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon."
I'll be more impressed with Lineker if he tells the BBC where to go if/when they apologise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
The only solution , brace yourself for a right wing meltdown
It's not the ONLY solution but the one in which the BBC try to save themselves from what became of the situation."
The rules /conditions were at fault if they prevented people expressing their personal views away from their work place in my opinion. If those rules/conditions are revised then something good has come out of it all as long as the new rules/conditions apply equally to all. Also they should apply to any point of view a person wishes to make as long as it is not inciting violence ect. This episode has kept asylum seekers in the spotlight and damaged the BBC (in my opinion) who some would like to see go down the subscription route |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
The only solution , brace yourself for a right wing meltdown
It's not the ONLY solution but the one in which the BBC try to save themselves from what became of the situation.
The rules /conditions were at fault if they prevented people expressing their personal views away from their work place in my opinion. If those rules/conditions are revised then something good has come out of it all as long as the new rules/conditions apply equally to all. Also they should apply to any point of view a person wishes to make as long as it is not inciting violence ect. This episode has kept asylum seekers in the spotlight and damaged the BBC (in my opinion) who some would like to see go down the subscription route"
Those rules/conditions that prevent people from expressing opinion are commonplace in employment contracts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
The only solution , brace yourself for a right wing meltdown
It's not the ONLY solution but the one in which the BBC try to save themselves from what became of the situation.
The rules /conditions were at fault if they prevented people expressing their personal views away from their work place in my opinion. If those rules/conditions are revised then something good has come out of it all as long as the new rules/conditions apply equally to all. Also they should apply to any point of view a person wishes to make as long as it is not inciting violence ect. This episode has kept asylum seekers in the spotlight and damaged the BBC (in my opinion) who some would like to see go down the subscription route
Those rules/conditions that prevent people from expressing opinion are commonplace in employment contracts."
It was never about the rules, though. That was just a convenient excuse trotted out by those in charge.
The BBC were perfectly happy for Lineker to make political statements on air on the BBC criticising Qatar. So he's apparently allowed to make political statements, even on the BBC.
And the BBC were perfectly happy for Neil, Sugar etc to tweet political issues many times. So apparently it's fine to tweet on politics.
But when Lineker tweeted criticism of this Tory gov, suddenly this whole stupid saga unwound. It seems clear the BBC caved in to pressure from the Tories where they should & could have defended Lineker from the start. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
The only solution , brace yourself for a right wing meltdown
It's not the ONLY solution but the one in which the BBC try to save themselves from what became of the situation.
The rules /conditions were at fault if they prevented people expressing their personal views away from their work place in my opinion. If those rules/conditions are revised then something good has come out of it all as long as the new rules/conditions apply equally to all. Also they should apply to any point of view a person wishes to make as long as it is not inciting violence ect. This episode has kept asylum seekers in the spotlight and damaged the BBC (in my opinion) who some would like to see go down the subscription route
Those rules/conditions that prevent people from expressing opinion are commonplace in employment contracts.
It was never about the rules, though. That was just a convenient excuse trotted out by those in charge.
The BBC were perfectly happy for Lineker to make political statements on air on the BBC criticising Qatar. So he's apparently allowed to make political statements, even on the BBC.
And the BBC were perfectly happy for Neil, Sugar etc to tweet political issues many times. So apparently it's fine to tweet on politics.
But when Lineker tweeted criticism of this Tory gov, suddenly this whole stupid saga unwound. It seems clear the BBC caved in to pressure from the Tories where they should & could have defended Lineker from the start."
If you read what I was replying to you'd understand why I mentioned they're commonplace in employment contracts. Possibly not this one, we don't actually know
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
The only solution , brace yourself for a right wing meltdown
It's not the ONLY solution but the one in which the BBC try to save themselves from what became of the situation.
The rules /conditions were at fault if they prevented people expressing their personal views away from their work place in my opinion. If those rules/conditions are revised then something good has come out of it all as long as the new rules/conditions apply equally to all. Also they should apply to any point of view a person wishes to make as long as it is not inciting violence ect. This episode has kept asylum seekers in the spotlight and damaged the BBC (in my opinion) who some would like to see go down the subscription route
Those rules/conditions that prevent people from expressing opinion are commonplace in employment contracts.
It was never about the rules, though. That was just a convenient excuse trotted out by those in charge.
The BBC were perfectly happy for Lineker to make political statements on air on the BBC criticising Qatar. So he's apparently allowed to make political statements, even on the BBC.
And the BBC were perfectly happy for Neil, Sugar etc to tweet political issues many times. So apparently it's fine to tweet on politics.
But when Lineker tweeted criticism of this Tory gov, suddenly this whole stupid saga unwound. It seems clear the BBC caved in to pressure from the Tories where they should & could have defended Lineker from the start.
If you read what I was replying to you'd understand why I mentioned they're commonplace in employment contracts. Possibly not this one, we don't actually know
"
I was just making a comment about this whole saga not really being about rules. That's all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This climbdown by the BBC gives crackpot celebs carte blanche to spout their clueless opinions. It's a dangerous move and unworthy of a public broadcaster. Remember the BBC will now be compelled to give the same latitude to both left and right wing activists seeking a platform. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"This climbdown by the BBC gives crackpot celebs carte blanche to spout their clueless opinions. It's a dangerous move and unworthy of a public broadcaster. Remember the BBC will now be compelled to give the same latitude to both left and right wing activists seeking a platform."
Have you read this thread? Plenty of evidence of both left and right leaning freelance presenters already using that latitude in the past. The precedent was there already and Lineker did nothing wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man
over a year ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
"This climbdown by the BBC gives crackpot celebs carte blanche to spout their clueless opinions. It's a dangerous move and unworthy of a public broadcaster. Remember the BBC will now be compelled to give the same latitude to both left and right wing activists seeking a platform."
. ;, ,,, are you sure that didn't begin with Sugar ???
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This climbdown by the BBC gives crackpot celebs carte blanche to spout their clueless opinions. It's a dangerous move and unworthy of a public broadcaster. Remember the BBC will now be compelled to give the same latitude to both left and right wing activists seeking a platform."
Isn't that good? At the moment they're slanted heavily to the right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This climbdown by the BBC gives crackpot celebs carte blanche to spout their clueless opinions. It's a dangerous move and unworthy of a public broadcaster. Remember the BBC will now be compelled to give the same latitude to both left and right wing activists seeking a platform.
Isn't that good? At the moment they're slanted heavily to the right. "
The problem for the BBC is that their 'slant' is subjective depending on individual viewer's politics. But 'rule by celebs' is a slippery slope. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man
over a year ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
"This climbdown by the BBC gives crackpot celebs carte blanche to spout their clueless opinions. It's a dangerous move and unworthy of a public broadcaster. Remember the BBC will now be compelled to give the same latitude to both left and right wing activists seeking a platform.
Isn't that good? At the moment they're slanted heavily to the right.
The problem for the BBC is that their 'slant' is subjective depending on individual viewer's politics. But 'rule by celebs' is a slippery slope."
. ;, ,, at the moment The BBC appears to be being run by the size of donation to the tory Party and loan arrangements |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This climbdown by the BBC gives crackpot celebs carte blanche to spout their clueless opinions. It's a dangerous move and unworthy of a public broadcaster. Remember the BBC will now be compelled to give the same latitude to both left and right wing activists seeking a platform.
Isn't that good? At the moment they're slanted heavily to the right.
The problem for the BBC is that their 'slant' is subjective depending on individual viewer's politics. But 'rule by celebs' is a slippery slope."
Fair. But I'm comfortable with people who work for the BBC expressing personal opinions on politics, especially outside of the BBC programming. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
The BBC is too big for the Tory party backers to buy and wouldn’t compete with the likes of Netflix etc in the commercial world. So no money to be made and as a result no influence on political viewpoints.
Expect Tory implants in the BBC who will make it their aim to undermine the whole principal of the impartiality of the BBC. If it looks broken more people will be happy to see it go.
If you can buy it then destroy it.
The BBC as I’ve said before is the only organisation the political parties up to now have been unable to control. It will be a sad day in our democracy if the succeed in their desire for its demise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
The only solution , brace yourself for a right wing meltdown
It's not the ONLY solution but the one in which the BBC try to save themselves from what became of the situation.
The rules /conditions were at fault if they prevented people expressing their personal views away from their work place in my opinion. If those rules/conditions are revised then something good has come out of it all as long as the new rules/conditions apply equally to all. Also they should apply to any point of view a person wishes to make as long as it is not inciting violence ect. This episode has kept asylum seekers in the spotlight and damaged the BBC (in my opinion) who some would like to see go down the subscription route
Those rules/conditions that prevent people from expressing opinion are commonplace in employment contracts."
That's how I understand it now but did not know before. It did surprise me that it extended to personal outlets like someone's Twitter account. I can understand that they can not give their personal views while on tv but just assumed (wrongly) it did not extend further |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
The only solution , brace yourself for a right wing meltdown
It's not the ONLY solution but the one in which the BBC try to save themselves from what became of the situation.
The rules /conditions were at fault if they prevented people expressing their personal views away from their work place in my opinion. If those rules/conditions are revised then something good has come out of it all as long as the new rules/conditions apply equally to all. Also they should apply to any point of view a person wishes to make as long as it is not inciting violence ect. This episode has kept asylum seekers in the spotlight and damaged the BBC (in my opinion) who some would like to see go down the subscription route
Those rules/conditions that prevent people from expressing opinion are commonplace in employment contracts.
That's how I understand it now but did not know before. It did surprise me that it extended to personal outlets like someone's Twitter account. I can understand that they can not give their personal views while on tv but just assumed (wrongly) it did not extend further"
Do you use an external HR company for your business? If so, have a look at a contract in detail, it may well be in there |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
The only solution , brace yourself for a right wing meltdown
It's not the ONLY solution but the one in which the BBC try to save themselves from what became of the situation.
The rules /conditions were at fault if they prevented people expressing their personal views away from their work place in my opinion. If those rules/conditions are revised then something good has come out of it all as long as the new rules/conditions apply equally to all. Also they should apply to any point of view a person wishes to make as long as it is not inciting violence ect. This episode has kept asylum seekers in the spotlight and damaged the BBC (in my opinion) who some would like to see go down the subscription route
Those rules/conditions that prevent people from expressing opinion are commonplace in employment contracts.
That's how I understand it now but did not know before. It did surprise me that it extended to personal outlets like someone's Twitter account. I can understand that they can not give their personal views while on tv but just assumed (wrongly) it did not extend further
Do you use an external HR company for your business? If so, have a look at a contract in detail, it may well be in there"
I don't have a business I'm afraid. Just a humble employee. I would be equally surprised if my work contact prevents me expressing a political view outside of work on a personal platform but you may well be right and I should look into it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
The only solution , brace yourself for a right wing meltdown
It's not the ONLY solution but the one in which the BBC try to save themselves from what became of the situation.
The rules /conditions were at fault if they prevented people expressing their personal views away from their work place in my opinion. If those rules/conditions are revised then something good has come out of it all as long as the new rules/conditions apply equally to all. Also they should apply to any point of view a person wishes to make as long as it is not inciting violence ect. This episode has kept asylum seekers in the spotlight and damaged the BBC (in my opinion) who some would like to see go down the subscription route
Those rules/conditions that prevent people from expressing opinion are commonplace in employment contracts.
That's how I understand it now but did not know before. It did surprise me that it extended to personal outlets like someone's Twitter account. I can understand that they can not give their personal views while on tv but just assumed (wrongly) it did not extend further
Do you use an external HR company for your business? If so, have a look at a contract in detail, it may well be in there
I don't have a business I'm afraid. Just a humble employee. I would be equally surprised if my work contact prevents me expressing a political view outside of work on a personal platform but you may well be right and I should look into it"
The whole point is the BBC is funded by the tax payers. And pay Lineker a vast amount of money 1.5 million per year.
So we the public have a right to be pixxed off with his stupid lefty comments. If he’s that keen to voice his opinion give up his dayjob and run of MP. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
The only solution , brace yourself for a right wing meltdown
It's not the ONLY solution but the one in which the BBC try to save themselves from what became of the situation.
The rules /conditions were at fault if they prevented people expressing their personal views away from their work place in my opinion. If those rules/conditions are revised then something good has come out of it all as long as the new rules/conditions apply equally to all. Also they should apply to any point of view a person wishes to make as long as it is not inciting violence ect. This episode has kept asylum seekers in the spotlight and damaged the BBC (in my opinion) who some would like to see go down the subscription route
Those rules/conditions that prevent people from expressing opinion are commonplace in employment contracts.
That's how I understand it now but did not know before. It did surprise me that it extended to personal outlets like someone's Twitter account. I can understand that they can not give their personal views while on tv but just assumed (wrongly) it did not extend further
Do you use an external HR company for your business? If so, have a look at a contract in detail, it may well be in there
I don't have a business I'm afraid. Just a humble employee. I would be equally surprised if my work contact prevents me expressing a political view outside of work on a personal platform but you may well be right and I should look into it
The whole point is the BBC is funded by the tax payers. And pay Lineker a vast amount of money 1.5 million per year.
So we the public have a right to be pixxed off with his stupid lefty comments. If he’s that keen to voice his opinion give up his dayjob and run of MP."
Well latest polls show labour at 50% so probably around half the tax payers might be quite happy with his lefty comments |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Breaking News from SSN.
It is understood that the BBC will apologise to Gary Lineker over their reaction to Gary's tweets and he'll be back on air soon.
The only solution , brace yourself for a right wing meltdown
It's not the ONLY solution but the one in which the BBC try to save themselves from what became of the situation.
The rules /conditions were at fault if they prevented people expressing their personal views away from their work place in my opinion. If those rules/conditions are revised then something good has come out of it all as long as the new rules/conditions apply equally to all. Also they should apply to any point of view a person wishes to make as long as it is not inciting violence ect. This episode has kept asylum seekers in the spotlight and damaged the BBC (in my opinion) who some would like to see go down the subscription route
Those rules/conditions that prevent people from expressing opinion are commonplace in employment contracts.
That's how I understand it now but did not know before. It did surprise me that it extended to personal outlets like someone's Twitter account. I can understand that they can not give their personal views while on tv but just assumed (wrongly) it did not extend further
Do you use an external HR company for your business? If so, have a look at a contract in detail, it may well be in there
I don't have a business I'm afraid. Just a humble employee. I would be equally surprised if my work contact prevents me expressing a political view outside of work on a personal platform but you may well be right and I should look into it
The whole point is the BBC is funded by the tax payers. And pay Lineker a vast amount of money 1.5 million per year.
So we the public have a right to be pixxed off with his stupid lefty comments. If he’s that keen to voice his opinion give up his dayjob and run of MP."
Is it only "stupid lefties" that oppose the use of such awful language and horrific government policies? Weird claim.
Why don't you just not watch him?
If there was a pundit who came out saying they hated foriegners. I just wouldn't watch them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't have a business I'm afraid. Just a humble employee. I would be equally surprised if my work contact prevents me expressing a political view outside of work on a personal platform but you may well be right and I should look into it"
You should talk to HR and get a copy of your employment contract, and search it for the word 'disrepute'.
The clause won't attempt to prevent you from posting your opinions, but it will give the company the right to sack you if they get into difficulty because of it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
