Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sign in to follow this  
copper123

Gary Lineker (moved)

Recommended Posts

Just my personal opinion, but why can't gary linecar express his own personal opinion anywhere he wants to just because he is paid by a uk based news organisation why can he not have his own opinion? Baffles me.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, copper123 said:

Just my personal opinion, but why can't gary linecar express his own personal opinion anywhere he wants to just because he is paid by a uk based news organisation why can he not have his own opinion? Baffles me.

Because it is the national broadcaster that we are forced to pay for, on the basis that it stays impartial.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nick said:

Because it is the national broadcaster that we are forced to pay for, on the basis that it stays impartial.

You don't have to listen to his Twitter feed , there is a disconect button like the off button on a tv  , he never said  anything on live tv about politics , much as i resent his large wage and think there are other equally tallented presenters  he is entitled to his own opinions

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nick said:

Because it is the national broadcaster that we are forced to pay for, on the basis that it stays impartial.

Doesn’t impartially then become a towed line that no longer represent free speech? Of course if you’re a BBC children’s presenter you might reasonably be expected not to talk of child molestation, whereas a BBC news presenter could.
This very much smells of ‘do as you’re told’ within the role, which then suggests as a children’s presenter you might live in fear of being quoted as admitting you enjoy having sex with your wife?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Doesn’t impartially then become a towed line that no longer represent free speech? Of course if you’re a BBC children’s presenter you might reasonably be expected not to talk of child molestation, whereas a BBC news presenter could.
This very much smells of ‘do as you’re told’ within the role, which then suggests as a children’s presenter you might live in fear of being quoted as admitting you enjoy having sex with your wife?

Every other BBC employee manages to navigate this 'minefield' successfully (mostly), so it can't be that difficult.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nick said:

Because it is the national broadcaster that we are forced to pay for, on the basis that it stays impartial.

Sorry, but that's totally wrong. 1) he's sport, for which there are much more relaxed rules about impartiality, and 2) he can say what he likes on Twitter, where he's not representing the BBC. Would I say the same if I didn't 100% agree with him? Don't know...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC. Impartial. Sport.

The BBC, being a license financed, non ad revenue, broadcaster, brand names and logos are always edited out wherever possible, even to the extent of food brand identifiers being clumsily censored by use of black tape on containers in cookery shows. Sport? Come footy post match analysis; any manager, player, associated pundit, loon with a view, is shown standing before a board festooned with ads for all manner of companies and products.

Why is this?

Edited by Michael-Roo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Sorry, but that's totally wrong. 1) he's sport, for which there are much more relaxed rules about impartiality, and 2) he can say what he likes on Twitter, where he's not representing the BBC. Would I say the same if I didn't 100% agree with him? Don't know...

You're absolutely right as you would say that because Linecar's saying an opinion you agree with, and he's using the Left's favourite tactic of comparing anyone who has a different and more sensible view to theirs as a "Nazi". You're right in your comfort zone there.

So how many millions or even billions of people from poorer parts of the world should we let in? Is there a limit, if so where would you put it? Very few if any of these people currently crossing the Channel is a genuine asylum seeker as far as I can see - they have all travelled through several safe countries to get to Northern France from which they can then get escorted over the English Channel to a life of relative luxury in Britain. And they're nearly all men, but wouldn't genuine asylum seekers from war-ravaged places be to a large extent women and children? They're the more vulnerable ones. 

And most of them are Albanians and Indians. What a joke. Apparently in many cases the taxpayer-funded human rights lawyers tell them to play the homosexual card, and as a result, 55% of Albanians (Muslim country) are currently granted asylum here compared to 2% in France. Our system is infiltrated and broken and the government aren't interested in fixing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Michael-Roo said:

BBC. Impartial. Sport.

The BBC, being a license financed, non ad revenue, broadcaster, brand names and logos are always edited out wherever possible, even to the extent of food brand identifiers being clumsily censored by use of black tape on containers in cookery shows. Sport? Come footy post match analysis; any manager, player, associated pundit, loon with a view, is shown standing before a board festooned with ads for all manner of companies and products.

Why is this?

Probably part of the contract involved with winning the match coverage to start with? The Beeb may not have had much choice in the matter when getting MOTD rights from the PL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2023 at 10:37 PM, Nick said:

Every other BBC employee manages to navigate this 'minefield' successfully (mostly), so it can't be that difficult.

I hear what you say, Nick, except it’s so obvious to everyone that the bbc is conditioned right to its very core, and something that, like everything else, will never ever be cured/solved. I live with it, but occasionally take exception to things like this!

There could come a day when David Attenborough’s take on climate change may not suit ‘impartiality,’ and perhaps that time will bring an end to our viewing of those bygone days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been looking for laughs in a number of posts now, but no, not even a chuckle.  Are you sure you’re all posting in the right thread?

Jerry

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically Gary is freelance and therefore not bound by impartiality criteria. But the problem is that he is very closely associated with the BBC through MOTD. Consequently by saying what he has, it does make the BBC appear, once again, not impartial. 

Why is it so important for the BBC to be strictly impartial? It all comes down to licence payers who represent an entire spectrum of political views from far left to far right, and all points in between. ergo: it's very unreasonable to not be impartial as you are then essentially trashing the views of those who still have to pay for you.  

The licence fee goes towards the BBC, and on pain of criminal prosecution, each TV viewer has to pay the licence fee if they are to legally watch any other channel live. Even if they don't watch the BBC. Most people were happy to put up with this while the BBC came across as impartial, but I'm afraid they no longer do.    

As far as what Gary said, I personally wouldn't give a crap if he worked for anywhere else than the BBC. He's entitled to his own views and is as free as the rest of us to spout them, however ludicrous his nazi analogy may be. But as a high profile representative of the BBC, he should at least show some respect to those who have to pay his gigantic wage bill, and keep his trap shut until he leaves, apart from football.

Having said all that I do think he handled that situation of a few weeks ago, where somebody set off a phone with sex noises on it during a live match, extremely well, with aplomb and humour. That was really well played. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree everyone is entitled to express their point of view, but this view also extends to how the Government spend our taxes,

I believe He is worth circa £30 mill and have read recently He is in court with HMRC trying to avoid a £5 mill tax bill, now that would go a long way to helping those He wishes to defend.

Unfortunately I feel He is just another one of these smug A, B ,C etc..through to Z listed celebrities telling everyone how things should be done whilst doing everything to avoid paying into the system themselves. They do all the FREE charity events on TV, Red Nose, Telethon and the like, asking us for contribution towards many worthy causes which the Govt use our taxes again to top up, but I have yet to see any of them hand over a personal cheque during proceedings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Old Money said:

I believe He is worth circa £30 mill and have read recently He is in court with HMRC trying to avoid a £5 mill tax bill, now that would go a long way to helping those He wishes to defend.

As a cynic, I believe that his twitter comments and the HMRC court case are not unconnected.  By demonstrating that he is able to tweet freely, he is seeking to show that he is different from a 'normal' BBC employee and that he is entitled to have his salary paid to his personal service company, thus saving large amounts of tax.  I also believe that the BBC will not take any action against him, as they also benefit from him being classed as a non-employee by not having to pay employer NI contributions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been reported that Gary Lineker will no longer present match of the day until, and if, agreement has been reached on his future social media use.

Don't know who will take his place. Possibly Ian Wright.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really know the man other than he eats crisps....  but I think he has the right on his private twitting  account to make his personal views known and his view of the home secretaries language seems about accurate , the language used is inflammatory  but it does as is expected and In Flames A  Tory.... so if that stokes them up they cannot have much confidence in their own fires.  

 

Oh and I personally am quite happy to carry on paying such a small amount each year for a TV licence 

Edited by DrLarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

It's been reported that Gary Lineker will no longer present match of the day until, and if, agreement has been reached on his future social media use.

Don't know who will take his place. Possibly Ian Wright.   

It won't be Ian Wright, who, as a Lineker supporter, has ruled himself out. More likely Jermaine Jenas.

Also, Gary did not go of his own accord. He was pushed.

Nana Akua on GB News has said she used to work, also as a freelance journalist, for the BBC, and was told "in no uncertain terms" that she wasn't able to state personal views that breached the impartiality guidelines, having done so, and that there is rule convergence between all types of journalists, be they sports, news or anything else. Same rules apply according to Tim Davie. Nana was surprised that Gary has been given so many chances, and that "different rules seem to apply depending on who you are". That's why she left, which was the honourable thing to do. 

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to whoever moved this thread - it was in the wrong place .

While gary does earn a large salary please remember he probably could get quite near it as a celeb doing adverts etc for far less work , I think he actually enjoys what he does and it shows - he's so lucky really .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DrLarry said:

I don't really know the man other than he eats crisps....  but I think he has the right on his private twitting  account to make his personal views known and his view of the home secretaries language seems about accurate , the language used is inflammatory  but it does as is expected and In Flames A  Tory.... so if that stokes them up they cannot have much confidence in their own fires.  

 

Oh and I personally am quite happy to carry on paying such a small amount each year for a TV licence 

I think if you believe the TV licence is cheap you are obviously well off , my yearly direct debit came out last month and it was a sizeable chunk out of my monthly wage, it hurt...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, copper123 said:

I think if you believe the TV licence is cheap you are obviously well off , my yearly direct debit came out last month and it was a sizeable chunk out of my monthly wage, it hurt...

Well I think it's good value for money.  No I'm not really that well off but I don't need a lot of money to live on.  But I don't think I spend more than £300 per month living expenses and I think it's about £12 a month.  Does that make my statement less or more valid ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC policies are just seeking to protect our national institution. 

Ideally, the BBC would allow broadcasters to express personal politics - such that we could receive a diversity of perspectives.  

The BBC is more realistic: a lack of diversity would undermine claims to impartiality, put at risk the £12 public funding - and so the existence of the BBC. 

Edited by Menger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just seen this on BBC website:

 

Posted at 21:1521:15

BREAKINGNo presenters or pundits will feature on Saturday's MOTD - BBC

No presenters or pundits will feature on Saturday's Match of the Day programme, a BBC spokesperson says.

Saturday's Match of the Day programme will "focus on match action without studio presentation or punditry", they say.

 

Hope it's a sign of things to come... all those massive salaries out of licence fee payers' pockets that could then be avoided! Maybe the BBC could then fulfil their (not government's) broken promise to have free TV licences for the over 75's which was part of their charter renewal last time around. Wishful thinking perhaps!!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Martinminerva said:

Just seen this on BBC website:

 

Posted at 21:1521:15

BREAKINGNo presenters or pundits will feature on Saturday's MOTD - BBC

No presenters or pundits will feature on Saturday's Match of the Day programme, a BBC spokesperson says.

Saturday's Match of the Day programme will "focus on match action without studio presentation or punditry", they say.

 

Hope it's a sign of things to come... all those massive salaries out of licence fee payers' pockets that could then be avoided! Maybe the BBC could then fulfil their (not government's) broken promise to have free TV licences for the over 75's which was part of their charter renewal last time around. Wishful thinking perhaps!!

Would it not just be better not to show football at all.  Surely that costs millions in TV rights.  They could just show miss Marple all afternoon 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever chose to rename this thread “Gary Lineker (moved)” had great foresight.

Jerry

  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

Well I think it's good value for money.  No I'm not really that well off but I don't need a lot of money to live on.  But I don't think I spend more than £300 per month living expenses and I think it's about £12 a month.  Does that make my statement less or more valid ? 

Agreed. iPlayer now carries a huge number of 'box sets' (never having watched Waterloo Road I'm now ploughing through the whole thing); as well as that there are 4 TV channels, and any number of radio stations both national and local; that's not even touching on a vast range of podcasts and the World Service. I'd say I get better value for my £12 a month (which by the way also entitles me to watch ITV & Channel 4) than the £10 I pay Netflix.

Edited by Peckris 2
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×