There's been much publicity over what he said about the Illegal Migration Bill.
Should he be dismissed from his role as MOTD presenter as a result?
|
Where to begin? Absolutely not, it shouldn't even be a question.
It was something he tweeted, he didn't hijack MoTD. Lots of people who are on TV gob off, Alan Sugar for one. Deborah Meaden tweets anti-government stuff all the time but AFAIK nobody has demanded she be chucked off Dragon's Den. Not to mention that the BBC chairman is a Conservative donor, and board member Sir Robbie Gibb is former Director of Communications for the Conservatives. So I believeLineker is safe, because they really won't want to stoke the row about that.
In any case very few people seem to be thinking about what impartiality means (not that Lineker has any obligation here anyway). Impartiality doesn't mean you can't disagree or criticise, it just means you do it fairly. And I don't think he was far out. Sunak and the awful Braverman have not been using neutral language any more than Enoch Powell did. He didn't call them Nazis, he pointed to the hyperbole they use to demonise and "other" the asylum seekers. I thought he was spot on as it happens.
It's blindingly obvious what they are doing, which is to deflect from the facts that almost nothing is working in this country that they have been running for 13 years.
The bill is illegal. Printed on the front of it is a declaration that the Home Secretary cannot assure the House that it complies with applicable laws. Yet she refutes that it is illegal when challenged.
Regardless of all that, what they have proposed is utterly unworkable, it is no kind of solution at all. They Bill means that anyone arriving by boat without papers is not, and never will be, permitted to apply for asylum. Modern Slavery protections will not apply to them so even if a woman or child was to claim they had been trafficked for sexual slavery, it would make no difference. They will be made non-persons.
First they will be detained for 28 days without bail. Then they can apply for bail, which if granted will mean they will be released, But they will still be non-persons, with no right to work, presumably no support, and we will have created a whole new class of resident.
Meanwhile they say they will all ether be repatriated, which won't happen because there are basically no arrangements for this, or they will be sent to a "safe country" such as Rwanda. Well, good luck with that. Not one person has been sent to Rwanda, and the contract does not in any case cater for anything like the numbers, IIRC the initial maximum agreed was 200.
There is already a backlog of over 160,000 asylum cases, presumably still growing because the Home Office has removed the resource that should be processing them.
This is electioneering, nothing else. They have nothing else. There are 7.2 million people waiting for operations and cancer care is badly affected. Sewage is being poured into rivers and the sea (the EA monitoring has been defunded almost entirely and the water authorities are now supposed to self regulate in this respect). Etc. etc. But all we are hearing is "labour won't stop the boats, we'll stop the boats". The plan won't work. It's pure BS, and fascist BS at that.
What was it you were asking?
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 10 Mar 23 at 12:19
|
|
I'm not sure why it's such a big news story. I think he knew full well what he was saying and isn't that bothered whether they sack him or not.
|
>> Should he be dismissed from his role as MOTD presenter as a result?
He should be sacked for simply being an overpaid tit.
Talking of tits and being sacked, I see Pat Sharp (radio DJ) has been dismissed from his job at Greatest Hits Radio with immediate effect for making a comment about a woman's breasts which was not well received.
He gave her a T-shirt with his face and famous mullet from his ’90s heyday printed on it — then said: “That’s the only way I’ll get on your tits today.”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64900345
|
>>“That’s the only way I’ll get on your tits today.”
Sounds fairly mild to me, if a bit childish. I imagined something much worse.
|
'That’s the only way I’ll get on your tits today.'
I would never say something like that to a woman I didn't know or hadn't met. I wouldn't say it all, in fact, it's just vulgar. Crude.
I love a bit (a lot, actually) of smutty banter with the ladies. But you need to know them well enough to start pushing the envelope. I was in a bar last weekend and it was about twenty minutes of gentle flirting with a woman I vaguely knew before I could ask her if she was into golden showers.
She isn't, but she's thinking about it.
|
Saves on the gas bill, Dave
Ted
|
>>
>>
>> He should be sacked for simply being an overpaid tit.
>>
>>
>>
I think he's the best presenter by a mile, knows his stuff and with a good sense of humour.
No, he should not be sacked - a fact born out by the Mail thinking he should be.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64920557
Sounds like he's been suspended pending resolution....
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64920557
>>
>> Sounds like he's been suspended pending resolution....
>>
I could understand that if he was a newsreader or political commenter but as he presents a sports program I don't. Many people who appear on the BBC have expressed political views of one sort or another without any comeback.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64920557
>>
>> Sounds like he's been suspended pending resolution....
Slightly surprised at that, it's ridiculous. The utter impracticality of the plans must come into focus at some stage and the real offence is the trampling on a human rights charter written by the UK.
They are truly disgusting. The plans will be challenged and judged not to comply with ECHR, then they will try to scrap that, putting us in the same category as Russia and Belarus. And they claim the majority support them - I don't think so.
|
|
Can't say I'm surprised, he won't be either.
|
More interestingly, does anyone think Braverman's plan has even the slightest shred of credibility or prospect of working?
Sunak will deeply regret ever giving his imprimatur to this one.
|
|
To be fair, BBC have made a meal of reporting this, by default bringing the matter to the attention of people (like me) wouldn't have noticed or noted whatever he was Tweeting. Well done BBC.
|
I did see a cartoon somewhere which said something about Braverman now being eligible to commentate on football, which made me smile.
I'm not surprised he isn't that bothered though, having been on over a million a year for a few years from just the BBC.
Last edited by: smokie on Fri 10 Mar 23 at 14:05
|
DGAS.
Sack Braverman? Oh aye.
Well GAS enough to type DGAS :-)
|
Alan Shearer and Ian Wright have both pulled out of Match of the Day in solidarity with Gary Lineker.
|
Maybe all the clubs should follow suit. I wouldn't miss it :-)
He apparently has clauses to maintain his impartiality, and he's broken them, Can't see why he shouldn't be "spoken to".
|
>> Alan Shearer and Ian Wright have both pulled out of Match of the Day in
>> solidarity with Gary Lineker.
>>
>>
Good.
They are all paid far too much money.
|
>> Alan Shearer and Ian Wright have both pulled out of Match of the Day in
>> solidarity with Gary Lineker.
They've taken the lead from Gary's favourite crisps.
Walkers.
Or, at least that's what I think I heard someone say ;)
|
Lineker should be able to communicate a personal opinion.
The BBC should allow staff and contractors to express their views. Any high profile performer would otherwise be denied the freedom to say that which they want. This would be unacceptable, other than (perhaps) in respect of news presenters.
However thew issue of immigration is bedevilled by two extreme views:
- that all "illegal" immigration is unacceptable with deportation as the immediate solution
- that all immigrant are fleeing some form of tyranny and should be unreservedly supported
Neither is a realistic or acceptable approach. It is not party issue - extreme views exist on both sides of the political divide.
We need to control our borders - the ultimate consequence of failing to do so is to reduce living standards to the point at which no one would want to come here.
There has been a political failure in all parties to identify an acceptable policy mainly because to do so would alienate some of their traditional voters.
I personally wish Rishi every success in implementing what is proposed - not because it is right, but because clear action to deliver an intended outcome is preferable to the dismal failure of politicians thus far to identify any solution.
|
"Lineker should be able to communicate a personal opinion."
Well no, I'm just reading a news article which says
"The BBC also has specific rules over the use of social media for all employees, including freelancers. These are:
"Always behave professionally, treating others with respect and courtesy at all times: follow the BBC’s values
"Don’t bring the BBC into disrepute
"If your work requires you to maintain your impartiality, don’t express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or ‘controversial subjects’ (as defined by Ofcom)
"Don’t criticise your colleagues in public. Respect the privacy of the workplace and the confidentiality of internal announcements"
So his T&Cs prohibit him, yet he seems to have broken them. So I don't see what the fuss is about when he has to face some consequences.
If he didn't like the rules he could renegotiate or leave.
It's a shame the general public will support him despite his rebelliousness. Not unlike Trump supporters don't seem to care what wrongs he's done really.
The subject matter really isn't relevant to his suspension, despite the left wanting to make the link. nor is it an attack on free speech. He broke his engagement rules, end of.
As an aside, I think on balance I agree with the rules. I wouldn't really want newscasters and actors putting their own spin on the news on Twitter, IMO they could be unduly influential on their fan base. Any with a bit of common sense wouldn't do it anyway, particularly on political issues, as they could be alienating as many followers as they are engaging.
|
>>If he didn't like the rules he could renegotiate or leave.
I don't know what's in his contract, do you?
Somebody with profile needed to call them out, and Lineker stepped up. If he ends up leaving the BBC as now seems likely, I can see him becoming a much more vocal critic.
I'm a huge fan of the BBC but they are in a terrible bind. The government wants to control it, failing that muzzle it or close it down. It isn't a state broadcaster, it's a public broadcaster and they should leave it alone.
|
I think his biggest problem is the disrepute clause. It's pretty universal nowadays and it's difficult to argue that he hasn't done that with the headlines he's getting, not least from the BBC themselves as RP noted.
>Somebody with profile needed to call them out, and Lineker stepped up.
So, by that reasoning he's OK to use his exposure at the BBC as a tool for promoting his political views?
Not to worry though. Nigel Farage will be standing in on MOTD while Lineker is taking a break...:-0
|
>>If he didn't like the rules he could renegotiate or leave.
>>I don't know what's in his contract, do you?"
Well yes, if the quote I included in my post was correct.
>>The government wants to control it,
Seems to me it's the Beeb which made that rule, not the government, in trying to do it's very best to be impartial, and I don't see how else it could do it.
|
>> Seems to me it's the Beeb which made that rule, not the government, in trying
>> to do it's very best to be impartial, and I don't see how else it
>> could do it.
Do we think that, had Lineker expressed approval of the Government on tackling the boat problem with the Immigration Bill, he would have been suspended?
Why is Sugar still there after tweeting a picture of Corbyn in a car with Hitler?
I see Greg Dyke, former DG, says the BBC should not have submitted to pressure.
|
>>
>> "Always behave professionally, treating others with respect and courtesy at all times: follow the BBC’s
>> values
>> "Don’t bring the BBC into disrepute
>> "If your work requires you to maintain your impartiality, don’t express a personal opinion on
>> matters of public policy, politics, or ‘controversial subjects’ (as defined by Ofcom)
>> "Don’t criticise your colleagues in public. Respect the privacy of the workplace and the confidentiality
>> of internal announcements"
>>
>>So his T&Cs prohibit him, yet he seems to have broken them. So I don't see what the fuss is about when he has >>to face some consequences.
...in the absence of any other detail, I can't agree with your assessment.
The nub of the matter revolves around the word "If" in the second clause. To be absolute (and to apply to all BBC work/"employees" in all circumstances) the word "If" shouldn't be there.
Patently, there is some lively debate as to whether presenting a Sports Program should disenfranchise you from expressing personal opinions off-air on political and other matters, but I'm not at all clear that it should. It would be clearer if it were a News presenter or the like that had done it (or indeed if Lineker had expressed a strong opinion in favour of Liverpool vs Man Utd ;-) ) but, given that debate, and if there is no other underlying guidance, then Employment Lawyers would have a field day with that.
|
...BTW, does anyone else have a sense of supreme irony in Rishi paying large amounts of money to the French so that they can take back control of our borders?
(All of which gets lost in the nonsensical debate about whether Lineker should be allowed to tweet personal opinions)
|
>> The nub of the matter revolves around the word "If" in the second clause. To
>> be absolute (and to apply to all BBC work/"employees" in all circumstances) the word "If"
>> shouldn't be there.
Report on the radio this morning (Times I think) suggests that there is further guidance which differentiates people in, say, news and current affairs from others who are doing sport or whatever.
That might well give Lineker's people some wiggle room. He's a famous ex professional footballer employed for (a) his knowledge of the game and (b) his evident ability to present the show.
As anybody who has tried to do something as simple as explain stuff they're 100% familiar with for, say, a training or publicity video at work will tell you it's nothing like as easy as the professionals make it look. I'm not massively engaged with football but when I do watch - World Cup etc - I find BBC/Lineker to be considerably more engaging than their rivals.
According to my son, who is a massive fan of the game, not only are we without MOTD today but there's no Football Focus, no Final Score and Fighting Talk has been pulled with no announcement.
Solving this is going to involve significant loss of face to somebody, or both.
|
>> According to my son, who is a massive fan of the game, not only are
>> we without MOTD today but there's no Football Focus, no Final Score and Fighting Talk
>> has been pulled with no announcement.
>>
>> Solving this is going to involve significant loss of face to somebody, or both.
>>
I couldn't care less about footie (nowadays, should I say that 'I could care less'?) but why don't they just put the pictures on the screen and people could watch it without commentary - just like going to the game?
Although after England's performance today, I don't want to watch anything with a ball, thank you.
|
>>I personally wish Rishi every success in implementing what is proposed - not because it is right
Or even legal. It's just not doable IMO. The only way it can work is if it deters all the boat traffickers' customers. I'm not sure it will, although it will have an effect more or less.
|
I can't see that the BBC can do anything other than terminate his contract.
They have said that they consider his tweets to breach their editorial guidelines and it's not the first time.
If they let him get away with it again they're opening a huge can of worms with other presenters and staff.
I think the Beeb should be put on suicide watch.
|
>> There's been much publicity over what he said about the Illegal Migration Bill.
>>
>> Should he be dismissed from his role as MOTD presenter as a result?
Of course he should. As a UK citizen he has the right to tweet what the hell he likes. As a media personality, he can take up any position he wishes to influence. As an organisation who has contracted him, and is trying to maintain a position of zero bias despite provocation from both sides, they were right to dump him.
Actually he is a complete t***, both in his public and personal life but that is not the question.
|
>www.facebook.com/WeDemanduk/photos/a.510348388999676/6385925074775282
b***** hell.
There more venom in there than a snake farm.
|
|
Oh, and before anyone asks. In a show of solidarity I will not be appearing on Match of the Day this evening either.
Last edited by: Kevin on Sat 11 Mar 23 at 16:27
|
>>There more venom in there than a snake farm.
The comments are pretty weak sauce compared to the Daily Heil's comments on... pretty much anything.
|
There seems to be a lot of confusion created courtesy of Mr Lineker
Some support his views and actions mainly as they are critical of the current government. The political dimension dominates their opinion - irrespective of the merits of his views. IMHO his views are worthy, albeit somewhat naive.
Some agree with his views on immigration - understandably endorse his actions and are critical of the BBC.
Some feel that the BBC (like any employer) is right to protect its reputation. IMHO they have misjudged and exceeded their legitimate rights - preservation of the right to freedom of speech for staff or contractors must be maintained.
Some think the BBC a tool of government set loose to silence opposition to the immigration policy. In this they have failed - and if the BBC is merely a state propaganda machine it brings into question the legitimacy of the taxpayer funded BBC to exist.
All a shambles with the BBC at its centre.
|
The BBC could perhaps better protect its reputation by not seeming to suppress free speech.
If it were a state propaganda machine then how else would it be funded than by the tax payer?
But it has an independent charter, supposedly. As mentioned, it it s public broadcaster not, as it it often wrongly called, a state broadcaster.
I have been a keen student of the BBC for many years. The emphasis on impartiality feels recent. They always used to talk of "balance". That can be problematic too, as when it was in the habit of granting flat earthers the same amount of time as proper scientists when discussing climate change.
The clamour for Lineker's dismissal or suspension was led by the usual Tufton Street lot and right wing press, notably the Mail, Express and Telegraph. Whilst it's true that nobody reads papers any more, they do of course use social media where there are endless links and clips posted. Same goes for GB News . They might have only 5 viewers, but their clips are widely used. It's all just part of a cynical populist campaign, a calculated culture war, that's not a conspiracy theory it's there to see. They basically just keep repeating "lefty lawyers" and "wokerati".
Parliament is boringly slack just now. The government is putting forward very little, and sittings are short They are not addressing a huge list of problems, yet they find time to bring a Bill on migration that is nonsensical, illegal, and can't possibly work. Brilliantly summarised in the i today by Ian Dunt -
link.news.inews.co.uk/public/30796479
|
I see Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves said on Kuessenburg's programme said
"The BBC has clearly come under immense pressure from the Conservative party to take Gary Lineker off air."
"Clearly come under immense pressure?" really? Any evidence for that? I'm calling fake news :-)
I'm still of the position that he broke his guidelines so deserved a talking-to. That isn't to say the guidelines are correct but he's chosen to challenge them and therefore it oughtn't be surprising, and it is correct, that his breach has not gone ignored.
|
>> I see Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves said on Kuessenburg's programme said
>>
>> "The BBC has clearly come under immense pressure from the Conservative party to take Gary
>> Lineker off air."
>>
>> "Clearly come under immense pressure?" really? Any evidence for that? I'm calling fake news :-)
I suppose that, unless there is a leak, we'll find out when the papers are opened on 25years or whatever the time limit is now. Or if they're not opened.....
The duty minister on the morning media round in the aftermath was Robert Jenrick. He called publicly in the TV studios on Thursday for Lineker to be shown a red card. He spread the idea that that Lineker had directly compared the policy with the Nazis and therefore the Holocuast.
Do you not think it likely that such language was not being used and amplified between the Culture Ministry and others in direct contact with Tim Davie?
|
>> The duty minister on the morning media round in the aftermath was Robert Jenrick. He
>> called publicly in the TV studios on Thursday for Lineker to be shown a red
>> card. He spread the idea that that Lineker had directly compared the policy with the
>> Nazis and therefore the Holocuast.
Other Ministers also spoke on the subject and, according to a report this morning, something like 35 Tories had written to the BBC demanding Lineker's sacking.
|
|
That's no great surprise, you've got a set of MPs that think the BBC is the broadcasting arm of the conservative party and another set that think it's run by the guardian and it's readers.
|
>> That's no great surprise, you've got a set of MPs that think the BBC is
>> the broadcasting arm of the conservative party and another set that think it's run by
>> the guardian and it's readers.
The BBC is disliked by whatever party is in power. Long may that continue.
|
>The BBC could perhaps better protect its reputation by not seeming to suppress free speech.
It's nothing to do with free speech. It's about Lineker's association with the BBC. Lineker is free to tweet or say whatever he likes. He can tour the country and stand on every street corner calling the Tories out but he has to make clear that it is a personal opinion, not the BBC's.
Does he have separate accounts for personal and BBC related comment or is it the same account?
If it's the same account how does he differentiate between what is personal opinion and the BBC's position?
He's handed political nuts on both sides a golden opportunity to create conflict and settle scores with the Beeb at the same time and they're taking maximum advantage of it.
He's not stupid and it's been spelled out to him before so his arrogant refusal to keep his work and personal life apart is damaging not only the BBC but now his co-presenters.
|
At the end of the day, all the punditry does is just shorten coverage of the game. Frankly in the days of social media we dont need it it. Lineker and his chums are just a glorified overpaid TikTok.
The BBC should use this opportunity to completely rethink football coverage.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 12 Mar 23 at 17:15
|
|
One option I'd love is being able to silence the commentary and enhance the crowd noise for the atmosphere. Not for the faint of heart because of the language, but you wouldn't have to choose it.
|
|
Yeah, we need a good round of "In your Liverpool Homes"
|
>> One option I'd love is being able to silence the commentary and enhance the crowd
>> noise for the atmosphere. Not for the faint of heart because of the language, but
>> you wouldn't have to choose it.
Isn't that what happened on MOTD Sunday night? Twenty minutes of highlights with just the sound from the ground - just like being there.
|
>> It's nothing to do with free speech. It's about Lineker's association with the BBC. Lineker
>> is free to tweet or say whatever he likes. He can tour the country and
>> stand on every street corner calling the Tories out but he has to make clear
>> that it is a personal opinion, not the BBC's.
I would respectfully disagree with the assertion that "it has nothing to do with free speech". What I'm seeing here is conflict between Lineker's right to free speech AND his contractual obligations concerning balance or impartiality regarding his employer.
Truth told we don't know exactly what is in his contract and the extent to which it is prohibitive (you shall not) or whether, as actually seems to be the case, there are guidelines which may be ambiguous, not all in one place, and vary both over time and in being applied differently to different classes of 'talent'.
I suspect that when, later today, his suspension is ended the quality and certainty of 'guidance' will give enough wiggle room for both sides to claim they acted correctly/
>> Does he have separate accounts for personal and BBC related comment or is it the
>> same account?
>> If it's the same account how does he differentiate between what is personal opinion and
>> the BBC's position?
I don't do Twitter myself and have not seen his account but some reports say it's very much his personal account with no links to the BBC or MOTD.
|
>>Truth told we don't know exactly what is in his contract
I'll guess we now have a much better idea of what's in his contract. I had a feeling it didn't include the BBC's 2020 "guidelines". If so Davie should have read it before cocking his gun and aiming at his foot.
More detail to come I suspect, because Davie giving in just makes the BBC, and especially Davie, look incompetent.
|
>> I'll guess we now have a much better idea of what's in his contract. I
>> had a feeling it didn't include the BBC's 2020 "guidelines". If so Davie should have
>> read it before cocking his gun and aiming at his foot.
>>
>> More detail to come I suspect, because Davie giving in just makes the BBC, and
>> especially Davie, look incompetent.
Beeb's own rolling coverage says that there will be an independently led review of guidelines for presenters on use of SM.
Sky report here;
news.sky.com/story/gary-lineker-to-return-to-hosting-sport-for-the-bbc-following-row-over-migration-tweets-12832734
I suspect you're right about there being, at best, ambiguity over which iteration of regs actually applied.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 13 Mar 23 at 10:37
|
"I had a feeling it didn't include the BBC's 2020 "guidelines". If so Davie should have read it before cocking his gun and aiming at his foot"
For the sake of balance and impartiality :-), OTOH if it was included Lineker should have read it before cocking his gun and aiming at his foot
|
|
Both Alan Sugar and Jeremy Clarkson have never been shy about airing their political views, including appearances on Question Time. The hosted shows that were at least as high profile as MoTD yet they were never called to account for their lack of impartiality. I think a lot of the rancour against Lineker is because some people resent "Uneducated jumped up working class oiks" who become rich through playing football instead of knowing their place.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Mon 13 Mar 23 at 11:20
|
>> I think a lot of the rancour against Lineker is because some people resent "Uneducated jumped
>> up working class oiks" who become rich through playing football instead of knowing their place.
>>
Quite right too. In a free society we can resent anybody and everybody for any reason, or no reason at all.
I resent the fact that he is paid so much money. Is that all right?
|
>> I think a lot of the rancour against Lineker is because some people resent "Uneducated jumped
>> up working class oiks" who become rich through playing football instead of knowing their place.
>>
Good insight, I think you're right. Had he been a woman too, he'd really have copped it.
He's not a saint of course. Walkers crisps are mediocre.
|
>> "I had a feeling it didn't include the BBC's 2020 "guidelines". If so Davie should
>> have read it before cocking his gun and aiming at his foot"
>>
>> For the sake of balance and impartiality :-), OTOH if it was included Lineker should
>> have read it before cocking his gun and aiming at his foot
Yes of course. But that wouldn't explain why Davie has just relented with, as far as we know, nothing in the way of undertakings from Lineker. It makes him look feeble at best and I don't see why he would do it unless he had no choice. As there was a BBC board this morning I assume it also has their imprimatur.
To call something a guideline is another way of saying it's not a rule, or law.
The victim here, unfortunately, is the BBC. Imagine there being a GB News, and no BBC.
|
Not nothing from Lineker.
"Lineker has agreed to stick to the current guidelines while this review is carried out"
|
|
Where's that quote from, Smokie?
|
Page on the BBC site covers what both say as of today:
www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/director-general-tim-davie-gary-lineker
Davie says that, while a review takes place, the current guidance remain in place.
I guess that Lineker is OK with that but I cannot see anything where he says so.
|
>>
>> Davie says that, while a review takes place, the current guidance remain in place.
>>
...ongoing lack of clarity. The consensus appears to be that GL was not made contractually subject to the current "contractual" BBC guidance ostensibly published somewhere upthread.
Does "current guidance" mean status quo (i.e. GL is outwith) or does it mean he's taken on board new restrictions (albeit non-contractual).
It's all as clear as mud!.
|
The BBC know they have completely fouled up the GL affair.
They want the problem to go away. Getting GL and friends back in front of camera is a major part of normalising things in the hope the incident is forgotten.
I agree GB News would be a poor substitute for the BBC which at least tries to report news objectively, but I am unconvinced that a licence fee funded entertainment channel has any merit with both other TV and online content.
The days when the BBC were justifiably regarded as an innovative quality broadcaster are long gone. They have largely sunk to lowest common denominator output with little to commend them over commercial output (which actually does a better job in some cases).
|
It still does a lot of stuff that others don't.
The most important priority must be to separate the BBC from Government. The Government cannot be the arbiter of neutrality/impartiality which is in the BBC's charter.
Sadly some of the good stuff is going, including important parts of World Service whch should be a massive factor in soft power, the only kind UK has now.
|
>> Sadly some of the good stuff is going, including important parts of World Service whch
>> should be a massive factor in soft power, the only kind UK has now.
>>
>
There was an announcement today about increasing funding for the world service.
|
In the bullet points of the 'latest update'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/entertainment-arts-64938252
"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"
|
|
That's an updated version of my earlier quote, which came from the Beeb news site. Sorry for the slow response, been out in the sun all day :-)
|
What's happened here is we've all been thinking about Lineker's choice of words and BBC impartiality, not the illegal, cruel, unworkable Illegal Immigration Bill. I feel as if I should know better.
It's a month since Lee Anderson, Deputy Chairman gave away in an interview that the last election was won with 3 factors, Brexit, Boris and Corbyn; and that they no longer have those so the next election will most likely be fought on "culture wars and trans debate". And here we are. This is a battleground they have chosen. Control the media, wind up the mob, find someone to blame, in this case 100 million people who want to invade us. Something else redolent of 1930's Germany.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-should-fight-next-election-29211636
The hard right Tory MPs are as mad as hell with Lineker. He's popular with the same people they are trying to appeal to with their demonisation of asylum seekers. Now the BBC has "let him off" they are mad as hell with the BBC too. They've been claiming "the will of the people" for their immigration bill. Polls say trust in Labour and Conservative to manage immigration is about the same.
www.ipsos.com/en-uk/trust-conservatives-immigration-and-asylum-improves-though-most-still-lack-confidence
|
I'm not sure ex-Labour now Tory MP Lee Anderson's thoughts should be interpreted as Tory policy. He seems to me to be a fairly unpleasant but more to the point disloyal sort, blowing with the wind in the direction he thinks will go down well - compare his rant a month ago in the currant bun - which included "We have 18 months to halve inflation, grow the economy, get debt down, cut NHS waiting lists and stop the small boats." - and not mentioning the points he raised in the Mirror article.
www.thesun.co.uk/news/21349822/lee-anderson-quit-labour-tories-win/
I must admit in my discussions in this thread I wasn't considering what Lineker said, just what had happened as a result, which seemed to be the point of the thread :-).
|
Well, he's the deputy party chairman and the view seems to be that he has been put there to front the campaign on the ground. And I don't think he thought that up himself either!
Not surprised it isn't in the 5 point plan - they would hardly want to publicise it. He's just a bit thick.
|
>> It's a month since Lee Anderson, Deputy Chairman gave away in an interview that the
>> last election was won with 3 factors, Brexit, Boris and Corbyn; and that they no
>> longer have those so the next election will most likely be fought on "culture wars
>> and trans debate".
Nope. Brexit was won on - yup Immigration. A significant majority of the UK population disapprove, strongly, of illegal immigrants. Its a valid election target.
|
.
>>
>> Nope. Brexit was won on - yup Immigration. A significant majority of the UK population
>> disapprove, strongly, of illegal immigrants. Its a valid election target.
Just quoting 30p Lee, but for some - enough - Brexit meant immigration. I think there was a lot of that. They must be bitterly disappointed!
I think they'll struggle with this plan even if they get it through.
They have no "returns" agreements to speak of, and in any case under applicable laws they can only deport people who have been assessed i.e. asylum claim processed, which they say they will not do. So presumably the next piece of shameful legislation will have to be to bail out of the ECHR which Britain wrote and was a founding signatory to in 1948, and water down the Human Rights Act which inter alia gives protection from slavery.
It's utterly shaming. I wish I could get an Irish passport but my Irish ancestors are too far removed.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 14 Mar 23 at 23:08
|
>>
>> It's utterly shaming. I wish I could get an Irish passport but my Irish ancestors
>> are too far removed.
>>
..I'm just waiting until a Scottish one has the same value..... ;-)
|
Why an Irish passport ?
So you could spend 180 consecutive days in the EU rather than the 90 in 180 rolling days ?
|
>> Why an Irish passport ?
Because it's the only EU country where I have traceable antecedents as far as I know.
>> So you could spend 180 consecutive days in the EU rather than the 90 in
>> 180 rolling days ?
To restore my lost freedoms!
|
>> It's utterly shaming.
>>
"You"* have only got yourself to blame.
"You"* voted for Brexit and Boris.
*"You" meaning you - the British Electorate.
Plus, if the Labour party had half a brain cell and had chosen almost anyone except Corbyn, then Labour would probably have got in. Plus, plus, even though you now have somebody else, you can't get behind him with any enthusiasm.
Pah! Take responsinility for the consequences of your actions.
I am going out on my bike.
|
And I’m going out for a walk.
I’ll end up in Skipton drinking beer with friends
Rotten forecast tomorrow...
|
Duncan, the only people responsible for the illegal, unworkable legislation are those MPs who voted for it.
I'm sure they know they can't make deportation and Rwanda work. So what is the plan? To blame the lefty lawyers, Labour, judges, other countries, ECHR, Human Rights Act?
The only way this could possibly work is by deterring the boaters in the first place. It's hard to see how that could work when the likelihood of being returned or send to Rwanda is small.
|
|
Well, didn't a leftie lawyer called Kier Starmer QC frustrate David Blunkett's attempt to stop benefit payments to illegals?
|
>> Duncan, the only people responsible for the illegal, unworkable legislation are those MPs who voted
>> for it.
And who voted for those afore mentioned MPs?
|
>> I am going out on my bike.
>>
You should be safe, the Beemer is miles away in Witch burning country, out Manatees way
|
>>
>> >> I am going out on my bike.
>> >>
>>
>> You should be safe, the Beemer is miles away in Witch burning country, out Manatees
>> way
Doggie training?
I think they dunked her actually. A sad tale.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Osborne_(alleged_witch)
|
>> It's utterly shaming.
There isn't a a way of stopping it, other than mowing them down 8n the channel, or throwing them in jail on arrival. Neither is acceptable. As far as human rights go, there is the point that they are not assylum seekers ( They could claim that in any of the EU numerous countries they have traveled across) but the UK is a destination of economic choice. They are illegal actions therefore how much does the ECHR apply.
As you say, the irony is that being outside the EU has crippled our ability to control it
|
>> There isn't a a way of stopping it, other than mowing them down 8n the
>> channel, or throwing them in jail on arrival. Neither is acceptable.
Agree, although locking them up seems to be part of the 'plan'.
>> As far as human
>> rights go, there is the point that they are not assylum seekers ( They could
>> claim that in any of the EU numerous countries they have traveled across) but the
>> UK is a destination of economic choice. They are illegal actions therefore how much does
>> the ECHR apply.
The fact that they could have claimed asylum elsewhere is, in terms of out international obligations, neither here nor there. If one is, say, a female judge from Afghanistan you don't lose the status of Asylum Seeker and become an 'economic migrant' by crossing France etc to come to UK.
Other than under current UK law, which may well breach our international obligations, no illegality is involved.
Even people like Ian Huntley have Human Rights under ECHR.
>> As you say, the irony is that being outside the EU has crippled our ability
>> to control it
That's certainly the case. But we said so during the referendum.
|
I realise there is huge political gain to be made by the Tories by getting everyone to hate immigrants and blame them for all the country issues.
But on the small boat problem itself.
If we were to set up immigration areas in France itself for these “boat people” to go to and be assessed and held until that prices is complete would that not save the boat journeys? And with the added ruling that anyone coming over on these boats would be immediately transported back to the French immigration centre. Therefore no incentive for them to take these boat journeys?
(And yes, as I said earlier, I realise the Govt don’t actually want to solve this as an issue)
|
>> If we were to set up immigration areas in France itself for these “boat people”
>> to go to and be assessed and held until that prices is complete would that
>> not save the boat journeys?
No. The process already exists to claim assylum/immigration status abroad. Asylum is 8nvariably refused because they have already left the place of fear/ persecution and immigration takes time to assess. So they don't bother.
The real sadness is that these economic chancers clogging up the system and alienating the population destroy the opportunities of real cases of genuine need to be in the UK
|
>> No. The process already exists to claim assylum/immigration status abroad. Asylum is 8nvariably refused because
>> they have already left the place of fear/ persecution and immigration takes time to assess.
>> So they don't bother.
Refused Asylum in UK because they'd left the place of safety?
Is that a fact?
|
|
Check the definition of assylum
|
"(And yes, as I said earlier, I realise the Govt don’t actually want to solve this as an issue)"
Wasn't it a central plank of the BREXIT referendum, which was passed democratically therefore is taken to be the "will of the people"?
|
>> Check the definition of assylum
I have; well founded fear of persecution and all that. UN Convention etc.
www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
Where does it say that you cannot claim in country B if you've passed through safe territory in X,Y and Z to get there?
|
It is my understanding that the "boat people" do this as there is absolutely no other way to try and get asylum in UK.
To get asylum in the UK they need to be here to apply. They cannot apply anywhere else and there is no legal route for them to get here?
|
>> It is my understanding that the "boat people" do this as there is absolutely no
>> other way to try and get asylum in UK.
>>
>> To get asylum in the UK they need to be here to apply. They cannot
>> apply anywhere else and there is no legal route for them to get here?
That.
Exactly.
|
|
The convention doesn't stop them being moved to a safe country while their application for refugee status is being considered though. Introducing a presumption of non-refugee status until proved otherwise is a reflection of the reality.
|
To get asylum in the UK they need to be here to apply. They cannot
>> apply anywhere else and there is no legal route for them to get here?
>>
I believe there's 3 countries you can claim asylum in, Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine.
|
>>
>> To get asylum in the UK they need to be here to apply. They cannot
>> apply anywhere else and there is no legal route for them to get here?
Pretty much, with some very specific exceptions which AFAIK are Hong Kong, Afghanistan (ACRS) and Syria (via UNHCR filter process).
Most have to be here to apply, but if they turn up unconventionally (now defined as illegally) they are not allowed to apply, for ever after.
As they are barred from applying, they can't be assessed. UK Human Rights Act I believe says they can't be deported without being assessed. So they'll be stuck here. But if they keep coming then I suppose we'll need bigger camps/more B&Bs or we'll have to release them. They won't be able to work, or be protected from slavery, I'm not sure about benefits.
I'd say it was all inspired by Catch 22, but maybe they have pinned their hopes on the boats just not coming.
It's a knotty problem right enough. And there are already 160,000, allegedly, here waiting for assessment.
Sorry I forgot Ukraine.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 15 Mar 23 at 16:59
|
>> >> Check the definition of assylum
>>
>> I have; well founded fear of persecution and all that. UN Convention etc.
>>
>> www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
Then they dont have a fear of persecution in the rest of the EU then do they. So we dont have a duty to offer it to them.
And you didn't find the bit that says "country with the best social benefits" then. Didn't think you would.
They are, at the end of the day, Illegal economic migrants.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 15 Mar 23 at 16:44
|
>> Then they dont have a fear of persecution in the rest of the EU then
>> do they. So we dont have a duty to offer it to them.
You're wasted spending time here; the Government Legal Service needs you now.
And if you think the UK is the "country with the best social benefits" you need your bumps felt.
|
|
So why do they want to come here? (Genuine question, I am reasonably aware of the limitations of the benefit system)
|
|
We and they speak English, its the most common second language in the world. Many of communities they think they can fit in with and get a job.
|
Language - America speaks a form of English too but they only get Mexicans don't they?
So why is Australia not also a target?
I suppose there isn't an easy route to either.
Family - surely family would warn them of the risk and legality of the boat route when there are legitimate and safer routes for genuine immigrants?
|
Some evidence would help.
Data suggests that asylum seekers are 3 times more likely to be successful in the UK vs France.
France, like the UK has a vocal right wing. France are slightly ahead of the UK in introducing legislation for language tests and quicker expulsion of those whose claims are unsuccessful.
France seems to provide a similar level of benefits to the UK - hardly generous but basic.
France also has a a far more rapid asylum process which can mean that a decision is reached within a few weeks or at most a few months. In the UK it can take several years and appeals process for a decision. Current backlog is ~166000 representing ~ 2 years of claims.
For all these reasons (+ possibly others) the UK is seen as a better chance for many - particularly those with marginal or unverifiable claims.
What is needed is (a) a clear and explicit asylum policy (whatever it is), (b) rapid assessment of claims (within 3 months) and (c) the resolve to deport those who are not successful.
It remains to be seen whether the current initiatives deliver this - but I see little evidence that the opposition have any better answers.
|
Genuine question. If the Govt were able to stop this with whatever means, would it give them a success at the polls?
Is it not better to always have the issue, have them to blame, and have them to use as a distraction as and when you need it?
All the Ukippers and far righters and their press moguls that believe this is the most important issue in society just now, what would they move on to next?
Much better for the Tories to still be having this fight come the next election and to claim that they would have resolved it if it wasn’t for Labour and all those nasty lefty lawyers.
(In many ways similar to the SNP always having the fight for independence, always gives them someone to blame and a bargaining tool to always carry with the voters)
|
1 Many speak English
2 No identity cards in UK and thus easy to find a job and "disappear"
3 Often an existing network of family and friends
4 The knowledge that it is very unlikely they will be deported
|
Should the BBC Sack Lineker? - Manatee
