| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 10:27 - Mar 13 with 6205 views | bluelagos |
Stick that in yer pipe and smoke it...
|  |
| |  |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 14:52 - Mar 13 with 1368 views | Guthrum |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 13:22 - Mar 13 by chicoazul |
Well known public figures who work for the BBC you mean. |
He didn't say it in his official capacity as a BBC sports presenter, tho. During Match Of The Day, for example.
It is the BBC which is expected to be politically neutral, not individual presenters in their private lives.
Moreover, rigidly enforced neutrality would preclude any kind of political commentary or satire. |  |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 14:55 - Mar 13 with 1335 views | BlueBadger |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 14:26 - Mar 13 by Ryorry |
If you think he should have been sacked, and that there's one rule for all, why is Fiona Bruce still chairing QT? Her latest in a very long history of defending the tories when she's supposed to be a neutral presenter -
|
Presumably Meekreech has been on a decade plus boycott of anything involving Richard Hamond and Jeremy Clarkson given their history of open racism on Top Gear when it was on the beeb(which they rarely received censure for). [Post edited 13 Mar 2023 18:26]
|  |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 15:08 - Mar 13 with 1301 views | dickie |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 14:55 - Mar 13 by BlueBadger |
Presumably Meekreech has been on a decade plus boycott of anything involving Richard Hamond and Jeremy Clarkson given their history of open racism on Top Gear when it was on the beeb(which they rarely received censure for). [Post edited 13 Mar 2023 18:26]
|
Fiona Bruce's statement resigning as an ambassador for Refuge is quite telling.. States that she was required by the BBC to say what she said |  | | |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 15:27 - Mar 13 with 1243 views | BlueBadger |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 15:08 - Mar 13 by dickie |
Fiona Bruce's statement resigning as an ambassador for Refuge is quite telling.. States that she was required by the BBC to say what she said |
So, she's a coward as well as a apologist for domestic violence then? | |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 15:28 - Mar 13 with 1252 views | dickie |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 15:27 - Mar 13 by BlueBadger |
So, she's a coward as well as a apologist for domestic violence then? |
So it seems, she should quit QT if she's that angry at being forced to say what she said | | | |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 15:37 - Mar 13 with 1231 views | chicoazul |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 14:52 - Mar 13 by Guthrum |
He didn't say it in his official capacity as a BBC sports presenter, tho. During Match Of The Day, for example.
It is the BBC which is expected to be politically neutral, not individual presenters in their private lives.
Moreover, rigidly enforced neutrality would preclude any kind of political commentary or satire. |
This is incorrect. If for eg Fiona Bruce said “abortion should be illegal” on her Twitter then she would face sanctions from that. All employers now have a code of conduct for employees use of social media.
Broadcasting to 8m followers on Twitter would hardly be covered by “the right to a private life” either.
The BBC is impartial in terms of its’ delivery of news. This is hardly the same thing as saying Monty Python or HIGNFY is a break of its’ charter.
Very simply this boils down to, should sports presenters on the bbc be allowed to air political views? There are arguments for and against.
Still I look forward to the TWTD herd endorsing Jermaine Jenas’ right to air his views when he says the Holocaust never happened next week. |  |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 15:48 - Mar 13 with 1215 views | itfcjoe |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 15:28 - Mar 13 by dickie |
So it seems, she should quit QT if she's that angry at being forced to say what she said |
I think there's a clear benefit of doubt needed here - she's in a high pressured role and as anchor needs to be sure the show isn't breaking laws and just trying to ensure what is said is accurate to what she knows, or more likely what producer in her has said. |  |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 15:56 - Mar 13 with 1179 views | bluelagos |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 15:37 - Mar 13 by chicoazul |
This is incorrect. If for eg Fiona Bruce said “abortion should be illegal” on her Twitter then she would face sanctions from that. All employers now have a code of conduct for employees use of social media.
Broadcasting to 8m followers on Twitter would hardly be covered by “the right to a private life” either.
The BBC is impartial in terms of its’ delivery of news. This is hardly the same thing as saying Monty Python or HIGNFY is a break of its’ charter.
Very simply this boils down to, should sports presenters on the bbc be allowed to air political views? There are arguments for and against.
Still I look forward to the TWTD herd endorsing Jermaine Jenas’ right to air his views when he says the Holocaust never happened next week. |
"Still I look forward to the TWTD herd endorsing Jermaine Jenas’ right to air his views when he says the Holocaust never happened next week. "
Even by your already low standards of trolling, inventing something that will never happen to try and make a valid point (That free speech should apply to all) is pretty infantile.
Still, you get to push some buttons so wah hey. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 15:59 - Mar 13 with 1170 views | MattinLondon |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 15:56 - Mar 13 by bluelagos |
"Still I look forward to the TWTD herd endorsing Jermaine Jenas’ right to air his views when he says the Holocaust never happened next week. "
Even by your already low standards of trolling, inventing something that will never happen to try and make a valid point (That free speech should apply to all) is pretty infantile.
Still, you get to push some buttons so wah hey. |
It comes straight from the Farage school of thought in terms of ‘where will it end? And then inventing some weird scenario to justify their odd takes. Bizarre. |  | | |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 16:09 - Mar 13 with 1160 views | DJR |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 15:48 - Mar 13 by itfcjoe |
I think there's a clear benefit of doubt needed here - she's in a high pressured role and as anchor needs to be sure the show isn't breaking laws and just trying to ensure what is said is accurate to what she knows, or more likely what producer in her has said. |
Absolutely, according to this.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/13/fiona-bruce-to-step-down-as-refuge
At the end of the day, one can't object to the treatment of Gary Lineker if one doesn't also have grave misgivings about what has happened to Fiona Bruce who only said what she was asked to say but has been the subject of great abuse on social media.
There is a grave danger of double standards on both sides, and it is not clear to me that Starmer should be calling for the resignation of Richard Sharp (as he has done today), because it is the sort of interference in the BBC that those on the left object to if it comes from those on the right.
Starmer also needs to think through the consequences of what he is saying because there are plenty examples of Labour-supporting people being appointed to high positions in the BBC and elsewhere in public life when Labour were in power. [Post edited 13 Mar 2023 16:28]
|  | | |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 16:55 - Mar 13 with 1091 views | chicoazul |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 15:56 - Mar 13 by bluelagos |
"Still I look forward to the TWTD herd endorsing Jermaine Jenas’ right to air his views when he says the Holocaust never happened next week. "
Even by your already low standards of trolling, inventing something that will never happen to try and make a valid point (That free speech should apply to all) is pretty infantile.
Still, you get to push some buttons so wah hey. |
You mean you disagree with me. Sadly for your argument the principle is the same. | |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 16:58 - Mar 13 with 1077 views | Cotty |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 16:55 - Mar 13 by chicoazul |
You mean you disagree with me. Sadly for your argument the principle is the same. |
I mean if you're not bothered about evidence or being a complete twonk then yes. But we both know that these are not your concerns. |  | | |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:03 - Mar 13 with 1062 views | bluelagos |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 16:55 - Mar 13 by chicoazul |
You mean you disagree with me. Sadly for your argument the principle is the same. |
I agree with you that free speech should apply to both left and right wingers.
I don't agree with your making up a scenario that won't happen, to troll to try and make yourself look clever.
Instead I think you are making yourself look like a dick, but am happy to defend your right to do so. Carry on. [Post edited 13 Mar 2023 17:05]
| |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:04 - Mar 13 with 1056 views | eireblue |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 16:55 - Mar 13 by chicoazul |
You mean you disagree with me. Sadly for your argument the principle is the same. |
“There is no statute in the United Kingdom making Holocaust denial illegal, however judicial notice that the Holocaust occurred was taken in the case of R v Chabloz and the defendant in that case was charged with sharing 'grossly offensive' material related to Holocaust denial. Some contend that this judgement sets a precedent for Holocaust denial related material being deemed "grossly offensive" and contrary to the Communications Act 2003“
You need a better example Chico, holocaust denial has been before the courts, and isn’t the equivalent of what GL has said.
Try again. |  | | |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:22 - Mar 13 with 1019 views | WeWereZombies |
'braindead woke zombies'...at last I get a mention in a Jonathan Pie rant... |  |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:34 - Mar 13 with 1001 views | chicoazul |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:03 - Mar 13 by bluelagos |
I agree with you that free speech should apply to both left and right wingers.
I don't agree with your making up a scenario that won't happen, to troll to try and make yourself look clever.
Instead I think you are making yourself look like a dick, but am happy to defend your right to do so. Carry on. [Post edited 13 Mar 2023 17:05]
|
So you *do* agree. Then what are you getting so angry about? | |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:34 - Mar 13 with 1001 views | LeoMuff |
Surely one of the biggest ironies of all is that the BBC chairman obtained his position after arranging a loan to Boris for £800k to solve his “cash flow problems”.
How is that impartial ? Surely a bit a worse than a tweet. |  |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:37 - Mar 13 with 995 views | chicoazul |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:04 - Mar 13 by eireblue |
“There is no statute in the United Kingdom making Holocaust denial illegal, however judicial notice that the Holocaust occurred was taken in the case of R v Chabloz and the defendant in that case was charged with sharing 'grossly offensive' material related to Holocaust denial. Some contend that this judgement sets a precedent for Holocaust denial related material being deemed "grossly offensive" and contrary to the Communications Act 2003“
You need a better example Chico, holocaust denial has been before the courts, and isn’t the equivalent of what GL has said.
Try again. |
Another person who agrees with me but can’t bring themselves to admit it. | |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:40 - Mar 13 with 985 views | bluelagos |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:34 - Mar 13 by chicoazul |
So you *do* agree. Then what are you getting so angry about? |
Angry? Behave yersen.
Far more important things to get angry about than a pound shop troll on Twtd. | |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:42 - Mar 13 with 979 views | Ryorry |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 16:09 - Mar 13 by DJR |
Absolutely, according to this.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/13/fiona-bruce-to-step-down-as-refuge
At the end of the day, one can't object to the treatment of Gary Lineker if one doesn't also have grave misgivings about what has happened to Fiona Bruce who only said what she was asked to say but has been the subject of great abuse on social media.
There is a grave danger of double standards on both sides, and it is not clear to me that Starmer should be calling for the resignation of Richard Sharp (as he has done today), because it is the sort of interference in the BBC that those on the left object to if it comes from those on the right.
Starmer also needs to think through the consequences of what he is saying because there are plenty examples of Labour-supporting people being appointed to high positions in the BBC and elsewhere in public life when Labour were in power. [Post edited 13 Mar 2023 16:28]
|
Sorry but that just doesn't cut it - she wasn't obliged to say exactly those words (the last part of which are clearly directly from Johnsons' friends who are defending him, not even from SJ himself).
All she had to do was “the job of BBC presenters .. ensure that the context of those allegations — and any right of reply from the person or organisation — is given to the audience in a neutral manner". So she could have finished her interjection on her words "Stanley Johnson has not commented publicly on that".
Either she was defending a high-profile tory, or she was unable to think on her feet sufficiently well to chair a BBC flagship political TV programme. Whichever (or both), she's not good enough to be its chairperson.
Awful also to see Ken Clarke shaking his head 7 secs. into the clip, as if to refute the factual correctness of what Yasmin Alibhai-Brown said - I'd previously thought him at least semi-decent (for a Tory). |  |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:55 - Mar 13 with 927 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:42 - Mar 13 by Ryorry |
Sorry but that just doesn't cut it - she wasn't obliged to say exactly those words (the last part of which are clearly directly from Johnsons' friends who are defending him, not even from SJ himself).
All she had to do was “the job of BBC presenters .. ensure that the context of those allegations — and any right of reply from the person or organisation — is given to the audience in a neutral manner". So she could have finished her interjection on her words "Stanley Johnson has not commented publicly on that".
Either she was defending a high-profile tory, or she was unable to think on her feet sufficiently well to chair a BBC flagship political TV programme. Whichever (or both), she's not good enough to be its chairperson.
Awful also to see Ken Clarke shaking his head 7 secs. into the clip, as if to refute the factual correctness of what Yasmin Alibhai-Brown said - I'd previously thought him at least semi-decent (for a Tory). |
I can't be certain, but I think Clarke is shaking his head in "No thank you" kind of way at Bruce, who, I speculate, non-verbally offered him the opportunity to respond under instruction in her earpiece from the Director (hence why the camera cuts to him and then off him so quickly) and when he doesn't come in, Bruce interjects.
It doesn't look like he is shaking his head at the speaker, to me, but I could be wrong. | | | |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 18:02 - Mar 13 with 912 views | eireblue |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:37 - Mar 13 by chicoazul |
Another person who agrees with me but can’t bring themselves to admit it. |
When you come up with an equivalent example, I’ll let you know.
Until then, try again. | | | |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 18:05 - Mar 13 with 908 views | DJR |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:42 - Mar 13 by Ryorry |
Sorry but that just doesn't cut it - she wasn't obliged to say exactly those words (the last part of which are clearly directly from Johnsons' friends who are defending him, not even from SJ himself).
All she had to do was “the job of BBC presenters .. ensure that the context of those allegations — and any right of reply from the person or organisation — is given to the audience in a neutral manner". So she could have finished her interjection on her words "Stanley Johnson has not commented publicly on that".
Either she was defending a high-profile tory, or she was unable to think on her feet sufficiently well to chair a BBC flagship political TV programme. Whichever (or both), she's not good enough to be its chairperson.
Awful also to see Ken Clarke shaking his head 7 secs. into the clip, as if to refute the factual correctness of what Yasmin Alibhai-Brown said - I'd previously thought him at least semi-decent (for a Tory). |
Sorry, I am not trying to be an apologist for domestic violence, but it did struck me that what she said had been rehearsed, perhaps because the programme anticipated that Stanley Johnson's history on that front might arise: his possible knighthood was, after all in the news.
And I do sense that some of the reaction to what she said was a consequence of what had happened to Gary Lineker and a feeling that others such as her got away with bias because they are Tories. That was certainly the way I felt when the matter emerged.
But I am happy to accept in full what you say. [Post edited 13 Mar 2023 18:06]
| | | |
| In Sir Keir Starmer's first honours list it will be on 18:16 - Mar 13 with 878 views | factual_blue |
Sir Gary Lineker.
Just to annoy the tories. |  |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 18:24 - Mar 13 with 863 views | factual_blue |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 15:08 - Mar 13 by dickie |
Fiona Bruce's statement resigning as an ambassador for Refuge is quite telling.. States that she was required by the BBC to say what she said |
I would say that almost certainly the QT producer was screaming into Fiona's earpiece the words the lawyers required to be broadcast. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
