Lineker and the Beeb

[Rewulf]

Just now, 12gauge82 said:

Do you believe the BBC has a left wing bias? 

Run by tory high command according to him 

[Yellow Bear]

45 minutes ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, I see  Fiona Bruce has has made some comments and stepped down from her role with  the charity Refuge 🤔, 

As I said elsewhere only free speech if the woke agree, otherwise "Cancel"

[welsh1]

1 hour ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, I see  Fiona Bruce has has made some comments and stepped down from her role with  the charity Refuge 🤔, 

Looking at what she said it appears to trivialise domestic abuse, even if she didn't mean it that way,it's not exactly what you want a figurehead of a domestic abuse charity doing is it.

[Yellow Bear]

15 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Looking at what she said it appears to trivialise domestic abuse, even if she didn't mean it that way, it's not exactly what you want a figurehead of a domestic abuse charity doing is it.

In answer I paraphrase for those pro,

 Looking at what he said it appears to call the elected government Nazis , even if he didn't mean it that way, it's not exactly what you want a figurehead of a supposedly impartial organisation with impartiality in it's charter  doing is it.

Yet he gets lots of "support" and a "slapped wrist".

Edited March 13, 2023 by Yellow Bear

[Gordon R]

I think we are missing the point. janner has uncovered "facts" of which we were unaware. They might be totally irrelevant, badly phrased, lacking logic, but he has shown us the way.

[Agriv8]

So twisting this a bit if they step down over linika where does that take us with our favourite ex country file presenter - Pac-Man ?

Agriv8

[udderlyoffroad]

The fact the debate is still raging here & elsewhere proves that it’s an important thing for the BBC that talent & management are seen to uphold the charter. This about more than just Linekar, albeit he’s a repeat offender. And despite @janner & @oowee ‘s posts, I find it very hard not to believe that had his posts been more, shall we say, right-of-centre, his feet wouldn’t have touched the floor.

As for the DG/Boris debacle, absolutely, conflict of interest. They’re cousins too!

Two wrongs and all that.

[enfieldspares]

3 hours ago, janner said:

The beeb has backed off as the debate was quickly turning to other dubious practices related to impartiality which it had hoped had blown over, such as the  director general's historic membership of the tory party and, perhaps a bit more pertinent considering he has been allowed to stay in his post until any enquiry is over is the scandal concerning the beebs present chairman, pre appointment to his present position as chairman he was instumental in arranging a loan for a man, who despite his £83,000 taxpayer funded salary and earning many times that from media moguls could not afford to pay maintenence for his many illigitimate offspring, the present chairman heard about this poor and morally impoverished mans  financial woes and arranged finance  of  £800,000, some 10 x his annual salary which to date has reportedly not been paid back,

The poor feckless man then showed his gratitude by appointing the present chairman to his £160,000pa position,

Thats why the beeb has backed down,

 

Yes. Exactly this. As my late father might have said who commanded a section of such in the 1940 Blitz might have said. If you are going to turn on the searchlights just make sure you've not left your own self standing in front of them when you do!

[JohnfromUK]

8 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

As for the DG/Boris debacle, absolutely, conflict of interest. They’re cousins too!

The DG and Johnson are unrelated.

The chairman (Richard Sharp) and Johnson are unrelated

Neither the DG nor the chairman lent Johnson money.

Johnsone was 'introduced to one "Sam Blyth" by the chairman (pre his appointment) who is a friend of his and also a cousin of Johnson.  He lent the money.

https://www.itv.com/news/2023-02-12/who-is-bbc-chairman-richard-sharp-and-why-is-he-in-trouble

Edited March 13, 2023 by JohnfromUK

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

The DG and Johnson are unrelated.

The chairman (Richard Sharp) and Johnson are unrelated

Neither the DG nor the chairman lent Johnson money.

Johnsone was 'introduced to one "Sam Blyth" by the chairman (pre his appointment) who is a friend of his and also a cousin of Johnson.  He lent the money.

Absolutely correct.

There are many media channels insinuating that Sharp 'sorted out' the loan, there is in fact , no evidence a loan was ever arranged by Blyth, and certainly no evidence it was never paid back , that is pure conjecture.
Yet they are trying to drag the chairman into the Lineker (non) row , because thats all they have, very sad.

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Absolutely correct.

I'm no Johnson fan, but there is a load of totally wrong stuff circulating about Johnson, the 'loan' and the BBC chairman.

The DG is completely uninvolved.  Just for the record

1. Tim Davie was appointed DG (by the BBC Board) in September 2020.
2. Richard Sharp was appointed Chairman in January 2021 - well after Tim Davie was appointed DG.

So Richard Sharp was not chairman of the board that appointed Tim Davie

[oowee]

Its confusing everyone that the normally striving to be impartial BBC is dancing to the tune of the regime. Lets hope their is some glimmer of hope in the forthcoming independent review of the rules. 🤣

 

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

Its confusing everyone that the normally striving to be impartial BBC is dancing to the tune of the regime. Lets hope their is some glimmer of hope in the forthcoming independent review of the rules. 🤣

 

Im not sure how you work that out , the BBC has just stuck 2 fingers up to the 'regime', reinstated lineker and virtually apologised to him , then promised to change the rules so he can spout as much attention seeking, anti tory  , woke BS as he likes .

Yeah those tories have them dancing like puppets dont they ? 

[oldypigeonpopper]

2 hours ago, welsh1 said:

Looking at what she said it appears to trivialise domestic abuse, even if she didn't mean it that way,it's not exactly what you want a figurehead of a domestic abuse charity doing is it.

Hello, absolutely agree, 

[oowee]

19 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Im not sure how you work that out , the BBC has just stuck 2 fingers up to the 'regime', reinstated lineker and virtually apologised to him , then promised to change the rules so he can spout as much attention seeking, anti tory  , woke BS as he likes .

Yeah those tories have them dancing like puppets dont they ? 

Fingers burnt by popular dissent.

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

Fingers burnt by popular dissent.

The 'popular dissent' was calling for him NOT to come back, the viewing figures prove it 

But the Beeb doesnt listen to what ordinary people want , they do what THEY want, but  if anyone uses the BBC for their own ends , its the luvvies in the labour party, otherwise lugs would never be heard from again, but here he is , in your face.

' I cannot wait to get back in the MOTD chair on Saturday. A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away.'

 

[12gauge82]

15 minutes ago, oowee said:

Fingers burnt by popular dissent.

Popular dissent of BBC employees maybe, of the county, definitely not. 

The BBC is without doubt left leaning, I'd have no problem with that if it weren't for the fact it's funded via the tax payer, I would honestly hold the same opinion if it were the other way around to. 

The thing is, I'm actually in favour of GL and anyone else for that matter being allowed to express their opinions, but it can't be that only one side is allowed to do so. That's not freedom of speech. 

[oowee]

6 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Popular dissent of BBC employees maybe, of the county, definitely not. 

The BBC is without doubt left leaning, I'd have no problem with that if it weren't for the fact it's funded via the tax payer, I would honestly hold the same opinion if it were the other way around to. 

The thing is, I'm actually in favour of GL and anyone else for that matter being allowed to express their opinions, but it can't be that only one side is allowed to do so. That's not freedom of speech. 

Left leaning because it raises questions of govt? Left leaning because it argues from a researched position? 

The job we pay it to do. 

 

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

The thing is, I'm actually in favour of GL and anyone else for that matter being allowed to express their opinions

Me too , I just dont like the idea of paying them £15 a month for the privilege.

If I wanted to join the Trans Wokey Action (stops before completing rude acronym) Party , and pay subs, then I would, but Im forced to do it via licence fee, and Im not happy about that , and might have to express my opinion by cancelling the DD.

1 minute ago, oowee said:

The job we ARE FORCED pay it to do. 

 

[johnphilip]

33 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Me too , I just dont like the idea of paying them £15 a month for the privilege.

If I wanted to join the Trans Wokey Action (stops before completing rude acronym) Party , and pay subs, then I would, but Im forced to do it via licence fee, and Im not happy about that , and might have to express my opinion by cancelling the DD.

 

Hopefully this may give a push towards  the doing away  with   licensing  fees   , let them find  there own way  . Would also be interesting  to see  how  they manage  to pay these stupid  high  salaries. 

[armsid]

Funny how his followers did not pick up fleeing war and persecution not on mainland Europe 

[udderlyoffroad]

2 hours ago, oowee said:

Its confusing everyone that the normally striving to be impartial BBC

 

1 hour ago, oowee said:

Left leaning because it raises questions of govt?

It utterly, totally, failed to raise questions of the government during the pandemic* and toed the Labour line** completely.

I do wonder how quickly the tide will turn when Starmer inevitably becomes PM of a coalition government, and his Alistair Campbell/Dominic Cummings equivalent bares their fangs at 'the lobby'.

 

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Me too , I just dont like the idea of paying them £15 a month for the privilege.

This, but the BBC is massively holed below the waterline anyway, because Gen Z, whom they are, bizarrely, obsessed with winning over as an audience, don't care about broadcast television.  Those who do actually pay the licence fee, i.e.  millennials and gen X'ers, are cancelling their DDs in droves. 

As for older generations, the Beeb has made quite clear they couldn't give less of a stuff about them.

All Linekar, or rather BBC management's failure to handle him in accordance with their rules, has done, is accelerated the inevitable.  By how much remains to be seen.

 

*How much will this cost?  How many lives will be saved as a result of this lockdown versus how many will be lost? Never heard any of these questions

**Lock down faster, harder!

 

 

[garjo]

12 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

The DG and Johnson are unrelated.

The chairman (Richard Sharp) and Johnson are unrelated

Neither the DG nor the chairman lent Johnson money.

Johnsone was 'introduced to one "Sam Blyth" by the chairman (pre his appointment) who is a friend of his and also a cousin of Johnson.  He lent the money.

https://www.itv.com/news/2023-02-12/who-is-bbc-chairman-richard-sharp-and-why-is-he-in-trouble

I don't think its been established who loaned £800k, I thought Blyth was the guarantor not the lender.

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, garjo said:

I don't think its been established who loaned £800k, I thought Blyth was the guarantor not the lender.

That may be so.  I stand corrected. 

My main point was that neither of the two BBC seniors (the DG and the chairman) are related to Johnson, or 'lent/guaranteed the loan' him the money.

The chairman did make an introduction to Sam Blyth who does seem to have had a 'financial role'.

It did initially seem strange that someone has to be 'introduced' to his own cousin ....... but on reflection they may be distant cousins in a large family - and I realise I have very distant cousins I have never met.

[Rewulf]

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

It did initially seem strange that someone has to be 'introduced' to his own cousin ....... but on reflection they may be distant cousins in a large family - and I realise I have very distant cousins I have never met

To be fair , in the corridors of power, and the semi aristo setup up therein, there's a lot of inter relations. And cousins are a multi generational thing.

Our late queen was married to a distant cousin I believe?