Tonight's football thread

[Marco]

But that right of free speech, and the right to offend or upset within the law should extend to all. Clarkson, Lineker, and the welder from Burnley that flew the banner over the Etihad.

Unfortunately the Lineker supporters coming out publicly to defend free speech, are the same that called for Clarkson to be sacked, and Lineker piled in to the Burnley welder.

That cherry-picking approach to defending free speech could come back to bite him.

On the basis that the welder from Burnley was sacked by his employer, so should Clarkson and Lineker as they both have previous form

[Witton Park]

On the basis that the welder from Burnley was sacked by his employer, so should Clarkson and Lineker as they both have previous form

I don't think anyone of them should have been sacked.

None of them have broken the law.

But the the "progressives" have been behind a lot of this calling for folks heads. I think of Roger Scruton and Toby Young recently as well.

Maybe now after the fuss over Lineker, those usual suspects will think twice before they call for someone's head, because they have a lot more of their side in positions of influence and prominence these days who could be next in line.

[Mossdog]

I think Lineker is a distraction to a wider issue that has now come to the fore. Should he have a right to say anything he likes? Of course he should (within the permit of the law), as any healthy democracy needs to have freedom of speech and sometimes we all need to hear other views, no matter how abhorrent, or 'wrong', in order to help us reflect on our own positions/opinions.

But this argument isn't really about freedom of speech, no matter how the Guardian and their like, try to portray it. Rather, I think this is a matter of employment contract. I understand that Lineker, even being self employed and not directly a BBC employee, did sign a contract agreeing not to make party political statements. So, it doesn't matter that he's 'just' a sports presenter and not a news journalist. If you signed the contract then you should stick to it. If he wants to break the contract then he should leave, and he had already been warned because of previous political remarks he made. The same should be true of those who take a centre or right of centre position, and the BBC has been remiss in not taking action there too (I'm thinking of Sugar's remarks, etc.). Action doesn't necessarily have to be dismissal, if someone genuinely apologies and understand they made an error, but repeated offences and arrogance is surely a clear breach of contract.

Perhaps the wider related question is whether the BBC's attempts to strive for impartiality (and throughout its history there have been challenges), can any longer be maintained in the world of extensive social media, and its primacy as a form of broadcasting, together with employees holding multiple job portfolios. The rise of the hyper celebrity, with their significant sway over shaping the views and opinions of possibly millions of followers, has change the situation considerably in the Twenty First Century.

As things stand, I don't believe it is possible to maintain a national broadcaster which derives its funding from a tax on using TV sets, that everyone has to pay or face criminal action. I feel sad because up until 20 years or so ago, I adored the BBC. I also appreciate that offering programmes and stations such as the Worlds Service, BBC Radio 3, Science and Philosophy programmes, etc., can be a challenge to cater for as these are such relatively minority interests, perhaps not able to be supported by commercial stations. Yet there are some great podcasts out there that might fill the gap.

Clearly, the Lineker debacle shows something has to change. What about a slimmed down BBC and a cheaper licence fee? Should a national broadcaster still vie for the rights for major and global sporting events, when other commercial channels, even terrestrial, are able to provide this? Let the commercial channels pay their presenters millions of pounds if they can sustain it. Let's see how the BBC performs in the open market. Will sufficient people subscribe to the BBC's world view to keep it afloat? We'd see quite soon.

[Graham Breeze]

I think Lineker is a distraction to a wider issue that has now come to the fore. Should he have a right to say anything he likes? Of course he should (within the permit of the law), as any healthy democracy needs to have freedom of speech and sometimes we all need to hear other views, no matter how abhorrent, or 'wrong', in order to help us reflect on our own positions/opinions.

But this argument isn't really about freedom of speech, no matter how the Guardian and their like, try to portray it. Rather, I think this is a matter of employment contract. I understand that Lineker, even being self employed and not directly a BBC employee, did sign a contract agreeing not to make party political statements. So, it doesn't matter that he's 'just' a sports presenter and not a news journalist. If you signed the contract then you should stick to it. If he wants to break the contract then he should leave, and he had already been warned because of previous political remarks he made. The same should be true of those who take a centre or right of centre position, and the BBC has been remiss in not taking action there too (I'm thinking of Sugar's remarks, etc.). Action doesn't necessarily have to be dismissal, if someone genuinely apologies and understand they made an error, but repeated offences and arrogance is surely a clear breach of contract.

Perhaps the wider related question is whether the BBC's attempts to strive for impartiality (and throughout its history there have been challenges), can any longer be maintained in the world of extensive social media, and its primacy as a form of broadcasting, together with employees holding multiple job portfolios. The rise of the hyper celebrity, with their significant sway over shaping the views and opinions of possibly millions of followers, has change the situation considerably in the Twenty First Century.

As things stand, I don't believe it is possible to maintain a national broadcaster which derives its funding from a tax on using TV sets, that everyone has to pay or face criminal action. I feel sad because up until 20 years or so ago, I adored the BBC. I also appreciate that offering programmes and stations such as the Worlds Service, BBC Radio 3, Science and Philosophy programmes, etc., can be a challenge to cater for as these are such relatively minority interests, perhaps not able to be supported by commercial stations. Yet there are some great podcasts out there that might fill the gap.

Clearly, the Lineker debacle shows something has to change. What about a slimmed down BBC and a cheaper licence fee? Should a national broadcaster still vie for the rights for major and global sporting events, when other commercial channels, even terrestrial, are able to provide this? Let the commercial channels pay their presenters millions of pounds if they can sustain it. Let's see how the BBC performs in the open market. Will sufficient people subscribe to the BBC's world view to keep it afloat? We'd see quite soon.

Of course the issue should firstly have been about Lineker's employment contract - and those of the other BBC "talent" who have opined in the past.

But more important is the problem that everyone at the BBC is craven to "the talent", they are bedazzled by "talent" - that is why they work for the BBC and not an oil company or a widget manufacturer or a plumber's merchant - they all want to have their little spotlight in the media galaxy.

So short of Lineker gunning down ten people in the BBC car park the BBC was always going to end up saying "Sorry Gary. Our misunderstanding. Please forgive us and don't be too cross."

[molehill]

There are a lot of BBC employees on a fraction of Lineker's salary that go through life with the beeb being impartial and not speaking out of turn, it is what they are contracted to do and they respect their contracts. And can't afford to risk being sacked because they have a mortgage, bills, etc.
But if you earn £1+million a year from BBC alone (paid by us) have big ears, eat crisps and millions of disciples on social media it appears you can say as you like and expect to get away with it.

[Mossdog]

So short of Lineker gunning down ten people in the BBC car park the BBC was always going to end up saying "Sorry Gary.

Or him having the audacious temerity, on Twitter, to claim that only a woman can have a cervix!! Instant dismissal and exile to some west coast safe house for the remainder of his reactionary life (obviously no more free crips for him either - huh!). Yes, then, most definitely, he would have gone too VAR...

[Marco]

I think Lineker is a distraction to a wider issue that has now come to the fore. Should he have a right to say anything he likes? Of course he should (within the permit of the law), as any healthy democracy needs to have freedom of speech and sometimes we all need to hear other views, no matter how abhorrent, or 'wrong', in order to help us reflect on our own positions/opinions.

But this argument isn't really about freedom of speech, no matter how the Guardian and their like, try to portray it.

I don't think this is really about freedom of speech either.

What this is about is celebrities using their fame, or infamy, to attempt to influence their followers politically. Whilst most of the members on here are not easily swayed, a large proportion of the population are impressionable, naïve, or even gullible. And if Lineker, (or Clarkson, or anyone else who's famous), says X, then they will think that X is a good idea.

In a slightly different guise it's been going on for a long time. I was disgusted when Seb Coe became a Conservative MP in 1992 (not that it did him much good), and Glenda Jackson became a Labour MP at the same time - both of them cashing in on their fame found elsewhere, rather than entering politics through hard graft at grass-roots level.

[Witton Park]

A couple of observations.

This seems to have escalated and then been settled very quickly. Some have suggested it could be linked to Lineker's battle with HMRC?


Also, the speed and numbers in which his colleagues came out underlines how much the BBC is full of progressive left leaning folk, even in the Sports Department.
Like almost all public sector institutions, it doesn't reflect society so how can it possibly put out content that satisfies the license payers?

[Mossdog]

What a disaster! The BBC has effectively taken the knee to Lineker and the other plutocratic wannabe 'left-wingers', who want to proclaim their views, whether ignorant or informed, to the wider public using their BBC gained notoriety, paid for by the over-taxed public.

We now find ourselves in a situation in which, to use a rough analogy, it is like wanting to buy your copy of say, The Times for £2:50, but being told you can no longer do that. Rather, you have to also purchase The Guardian, at the bargain rate of £159 each year, for which you will then be allowed to pay for the Times and other newspapers should you wish. Any attempt simply to buy the one or two newspapers that you really want, without 'the bundle', will result in a criminal conviction. This of course allows the Guardian to employ some of its cherished staff on exaggerated salaries, and spout more of their effectively unchallenged views of its fav besties and top staff - unfiltered.

In the words of The Stranglers "I say, something better change..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSEOzimKnEY

[Graham Breeze]

This of course allows the Guardian to employ some of its cherished staff on exaggerated salaries, and spout more of their effectively unchallenged views of its fav besties and top staff - unfiltered.

Your calm,balanced,unemotional and entirely justified critiques of The Guardian are why I continue to suscribe to this channel.