Anything Political


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Cliff Ton said:

He worked for the BBC on the World Cup in Qatar. He wouldn't say anything about the Qatari government's attitude to a number of topics....."I'm only here to report on football".

 

As I recall, he made comments about human rights etc., in Qatar which had been previously  agreed with the BBC. But that was in the context of a sport programme. His recent comments were made in his capacity as a private citizen, on his private Twitter feed.

The BBC might have a stronger case if they pursued their Tory presenters such as Neill, Clarkson, Kuenssberg, Bruce, etc., etc with equal vigour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

True enough but none quite so 'in your face' or as blatant. To paraphrase Mone "I didn't lie to hide the the fact we're making £60 million and hiding it in a trust, it was to to protect my family

Why do you feel the need to influence others? What is your motivation for so doing? Is it because you think you know better than they? Is it because it feeds your ego if and when you succeed?  Is it b

HSR: Col is given a 'free rein to spout his opinions' for exactly the reasons you are, only he does so with more civility.   Recently there have been a couple of attacks on the validity of t

 Whilst not supporting the decision of the BBC or what Lineker wrote I just wondered due to his status(?) as a celebrity of sorts can he still be classed as a private citizen? Probably going to get shot down by those that know. more then me but the fact he is a household name means his remarks would get more coverage than a normal “private” citizen? 
 


 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I too do not follow football and have at best a neutral view of Lineker as a person. However, this row is not about football, salaries etc. It is about Govt. attempts to use their Political control of the BBC to suppress criticism of their utterances, language and policies.

Very important principles are at stake here.

 

What evidence have you got the the Government have somehow influenced or worse, the Beebs actions.?

 

I seen it reported that others think the same but as of yet have seen no hard evidence like copies of leaked emails or transcripts of phone calls between any relevenat parties.

 

Just in case it's relevant, I've have no allegiance to any Political party, never have, never will have and in the past I've voted for all the major parties and would do in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stavertongirl said:

 Whilst not supporting the decision of the BBC or what Lineker wrote I just wondered due to his status(?) as a celebrity of sorts can he still be classed as a private citizen? Probably going to get shot down by those that know. more then me but the fact he is a household name means his remarks would get more coverage than a normal “private” citizen? 
 


 

It's a fair point Stav, but if that rule applies, then why is it not applied equally to all BBC presenters? I've already named several who are known Tories who have got away with far worse,, whilst actually broadcasting on BBC, not just Tweeting

Did you hear what Fiona Bruce said on QT the other night when she basically dismissed Johnson Sr's reported domestic violence as 'just a one off'?

It seems she has apologised and no doubt she will just carry on until the next time, but she is not only a known Tory married to a major Tory, but she lacks the political insight to properly chair QT. She's both biased and out of her depth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn’t see QT but heard about it. It is horrorific and an apology just doesn’t cut it I am afraid. As a woman she should be totally ashamed of herself for such an unforgivable comment.

I do agree the rules should apply to all equally, but unfortunately as usual some are more equal than others. In the present situation could the fact that the BBC has to go cap in hand to the government for the licence fee have any bearing if pressure has been applied?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

No but I do know that she won "Rear of the Year" in 2010

 I'd say she's better qualified for A**e of the Year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Stavertongirl said:

Didn’t see QT but heard about it. It is horrorific and an apology just doesn’t cut it I am afraid. As a woman she should be totally ashamed of herself for such an unforgivable comment.

I do agree the rules should apply to all equally, but unfortunately as usual some are more equal than others. In the present situation could the fact that the BBC has to go cap in hand to the government for the licence fee have any bearing if pressure has been applied?

I agree about Bruce. She's led a charmed life at the BBC up to now but the 'nice middle class girl' veneer is wearing very thin these days as her attitudes and associations, along with her journalistic limitations become increasingly evident.

As for political control of the BBC. Clearly funding issues are part of the story, but I think it's far more instructive to join a much wider set of dots. In my view the present Tory Party has been totally captured by nefarious far right actors, who have insinuated themselves into the very centre of power.

Surely nobody seriously  believes that Truss came up with her crazy plans all by herself? She's too dumb for that, but not too dumb to be installed as a 'puppet' by the quietly determined, oil and tobacco funded 'Institute of Economic Affairs' and other crooks installed at 55 Tufton Street. Just because their plans blew up in all of our faces doesn't mean they've gone away.

They are still quietly circumventing parliamentary democracy at every opportunity and that includes using their influence over the BBC from within to manipulate the news and suppress opposition voices.

It was obvious to close observers that the hysterical bluster repeated daily in parliament by the Sunak/ Braverman double act was just a clumsy attempt to divert attention  away from troubles at home, whilst simultaneously pointing the finger of blame at 'illegal immigrants'. It has to be said that this is classic far right, borderline fascist political behaviour  and that Lineker's comparison with 30s Germany was spot on. The clearly joint Govt./BBC response has, if anything, proven Lineker's point and backfired badly by bringing Govt. interference in BBC impartiality into sharp focus and increasing, rather than diverting scrutiny.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Stuart.C said:

 

What evidence have you got the the Government have somehow influenced or worse, the Beebs actions.?

 

I seen it reported that others think the same but as of yet have seen no hard evidence like copies of leaked emails or transcripts of phone calls between any relevenat parties.

 

Just in case it's relevant, I've have no allegiance to any Political party, never have, never will have and in the past I've voted for all the major parties and would do in the future.

Stuart, it's more a case of spotting numerous clues, incidents etc. I'm a lifelong fan of the BBC, in terms of its quality of programming, it's socially liberal attitudes etc., but I'm increasingly appalled by the BBC's obvious political bias in favour of the Tories. 

Just watch  how Fiona Bruce 'chairs' discussion on QT. Also note how BBC main news programmes tend not to ask the questions which are obvious to those of us who observe politics closely.

Ask yourself why the BBC repeatedly 'platforms' unelected far right characters who front dubious 'Institutes', which are in fact political lobbying organisations funded by oil/fossil fuel/ tobacco and other interests which need to block environmental/conservation measures for their own survival, but which will also naturally favour tax breaks for industry and the  rich. The BBC's excuse is 'balance', which is patent nonsense.

And finally...have a look at this:

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0VboHdtrd8WfeUvuAR29DqJCh6b7biLVcUXWn3sujSHswznmhQdrHurCr21wTBQ85l&id=304806723192068

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one question do we not live in the UK?   Well maybe more.

 

I was under the impression that in the UK we had freedom of speech? 

 

Did not the top man of the BBC give a vast amount of money to the Tory Party?

 

Did he not know that we have other political parties besides them?

Where doe's equal rights fit into this?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the drive home from my Daughter's a little while ago, I heard the BBC Radio 4 News. They mentioned the Lineker issue and played a recording purporting to be Man U fans claiming that Lineker was out of order. Presumably, the BBC with its vast resources was unable to find anyone who supports Lineker.

THAT is what I mean by 'spotting numerous clues, incidents etc '  That sort of constant low level distortion and sloppyness is endemic within BBC News.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And while they’re all ranting and raving about Gary Lineker, they’re not saying a word about others who’ve made clear their opposition to the government’s plans. Surprisingly, they’ve not made the Daily Mail’s front page.

 

Here are one or two of them.

 

Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York 

Paul Butler, Bishop of Durham

Rose Hudson-Wilkin, Bishop of Dover

Paul McAleenan, Roman Catholic Bishop

Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg

Rabbi Charley Baginsky

Paul Parker, Recording Clerk of Quakers in Britain

Leaders from the Baptist, Methodist and United Reform churches

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Always wondered, does Lineker write his own crap pun's at the end of each MOTD?

 

RAF Scampton next week, will the BEEB cover it?

 

I'm guessing it won't be topic on

QT..

Alerta..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was the person at the Beeb, or any other organisation that might have every man (person) cat or dog ready to jump on them for things said by people with an influence, who are employed by the Beeb whether it be direct or under contract, I would have had concerns over the reference to Germany in the 30's not the basic criticism of U.K Gov.

 

I suspect Gary Lineker didn't think the comment through as it could be interpreted as suggesting that U.K Gov would be planning to carry out exterminations in the future.

 

I suspect no one else in a similar position criticising U.K Gov has made a similar comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looked at the BBC News home page.  Apparently the most important topic in the world right now is that a former top-flight footballer turned freelance pundit is to 'return to air' on the Beeb after resolving an issue about some comments he made on social media that didn't fit with their guidelines on conduct.

Over on ITV news, the main story is about some 'showbiz' awards in America.

Meanwhile, a war rages on in the Ukraine, there is unrest in Greece after a train crash that killed dozens of people and a large tech bank in Silicon Valley has gone bust.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re going to come back DJ but are you really serious that the BBC are bias to the Tory government. Really. 
You name some well known BBC presenters who are Tory supporters but there are many many with allegiance to the left.
Secondly and Stavertongirl made this point, Lineker is such a high profile BBC presenter his views on political matters or anything else for that matter will not be seen as private views. The BBC backing down is a victory for the woke left. Shameful. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Stuart.C said:

If I was the person at the Beeb, or any other organisation that might have every man (person) cat or dog ready to jump on them for things said by people with an influence, who are employed by the Beeb whether it be direct or under contract, I would have had concerns over the reference to Germany in the 30's not the basic criticism of U.K Gov.

 

I suspect Gary Lineker didn't think the comment through as it could be interpreted as suggesting that U.K Gov would be planning to carry out exterminations in the future.

 

I suspect no one else in a similar position criticising U.K Gov has made a similar comparison.

I disagree with your assessment of Linekers comment. It seems as though you have not heard the hysterical inflammatory language used by Braverman to describe migrants, in an attempt to not only divert from Govt. failures in all areas of policy and governance, including their 14 year failure to get a grip of the asylum system, but also a very distasteful attempt to vilify and scapegoat Migrants as well as deliberately whipping up fear and hatred. In my view, Lineker's description of Braverman's language was spot in. He did not mention Nazis or the holocaust, but he correctly described the exaggerated and inflammatory language used by Braverman, who in my view is unfit to hold office, because she seems incapable of stopping herself from being hateful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Engineer said:

Just looked at the BBC News home page.  Apparently the most important topic in the world right now is that a former top-flight footballer turned freelance pundit is to 'return to air' on the Beeb after resolving an issue about some comments he made on social media that didn't fit with their guidelines on conduct.

Over on ITV news, the main story is about some 'showbiz' awards in America.

Meanwhile, a war rages on in the Ukraine, there is unrest in Greece after a train crash that killed dozens of people and a large tech bank in Silicon Valley has gone bust.

I 've been watching the BBC News channel for a couple of hours now. Coverage so far has included the Lineker row, the Oscars, Farming , Doctor's strike, North Korea, Sunak in San Diego, Silicon Valley Bank, Ukraine, UK Conservation, Arab Oil profits, etc, etc.

I can't comment on ITV .

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, letsavagoo said:

You’re going to come back DJ but are you really serious that the BBC are bias to the Tory government. Really. 
You name some well known BBC presenters who are Tory supporters but there are many many with allegiance to the left.
Secondly and Stavertongirl made this point, Lineker is such a high profile BBC presenter his views on political matters or anything else for that matter will not be seen as private views. The BBC backing down is a victory for the woke left. Shameful. 

You bet I'm going to come back!

There are very few left leaning POLITICAL journalists in the BBC. Please check your facts.

Also please compare the total lack of censure of Neill, Kuenssberg, Bruce, et.  al. after they have used their positions as supposed impartial commentators to push their own agenda whilst broadcasting on political matters... with the IMMEDIATE suspension of Lineker after a PRIVATE tweet, clearly not representing the BBC and before any form of investigation.

The BBC has also admitted that the alleged guidelines have 'grey areas', whichbis not Lineker's fault.

Finally, what in God's name is 'the woke left'? Woke is a century old term which originated in the American civil rights movement. It simply means 'Alert to injustice' and I am very disturbed that you have joined with Braverman and many on the far right in deliberately  misusing the term 'Woke' in a pejorative  sense in an effort to discredit legitimate protest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the true meaning of 'woke'.

 

I don't know what you mean by the 'woke left'.

But it's clear you are using the term pejoratively so please tell me who the 'woke left' are, what 'woke left' means and why a victory for them  would be shameful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask what does “woke” mean. Hear it bandied about but don’t have an idea what it means. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Stavertongirl said:

Can I ask what does “woke” mean. Hear it bandied about but don’t have an idea what it means. 

 As I said above. 'Woke' means 'Alert to injustice'.

Any other meaning is a recent attempt by certain elements on the political right to misrepresent, belittle or ridicule the 'woke'..jn an attempt to undermine rightful protest  campaigning etc.

This pejorative use of 'woke', seems to have emerged since Trump divided America, Black Lives Matter and other group pushed back etc.

The UK right, including far right groups such as the EDL et.al. and Braverman, who as a minister should know better, have also adopted their take on the Term. Woke is now used by some, in a similar manner to 'Snowflake' and cries of 'Political correctness gone mad', to try to discredit genuine concerns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...