Have you considered that it is because some people don’t agree that those things are / were immoral. Especially based on the information at the time Which vaccine mandates are you referring to? I don’t actually remember but I don’t recall having to get the vaccine to do anything I wanted to do. Granted I didn’t want or try to travel abroad - but those restrictions were down to foreign governments. Not ours. At least if I remember rightly. And not having the vaccine didn’t tend to ban you from things. Just meant you had to quarantine for longer. Again my mind is going to international travel But I don’t think there was evert a mandate by the U.K. government that you had to take the vaccine
You are straw manning again. Most people on here readily accept/understand the government have sway over the media in some form or another The parts you were called out on was the apparent US government influence over Twitter with regards to Hunter Biden. Because at the time it was the trump administration in government But you just tend to ignore when this is pointed out to you. And then cherrypick what suits your narrative - which aligns pretty much exclusively with right wing alternative media Indeed I have never seen you loudly shout a left wing talking point. You can’t even seem to bring yourself to call out this current move by the BBC at the governments behest. You are more focused on misrepresenting what others have said in response to you in the past I thought you were big on free speech? Surely your bigger concern should be criticising this current action rather than trying to score points from past disagreement through the use of lies and straw men?
I’m just referring to the fact that when I suggested that the government would control media narratives, I was told that the media are all independent individuals who could never be influenced by money or incentives. I am a lunatic. And yet suddenly, because of MOTD, the media is totally under the control of the government, and democracy is under threat, because of match of the day. Hmm.. yeah. The same sort of control used to remove linker is the same sort of pressure used to get people to conform to the covid lockdowns.
I am big on free speech. I’ve already said I think Lineker sacking is ludicrous. On the other hand, I saw a leak in his contract with the BBC that specifically said he isn’t allowed to voice views on politics. So I guess a private corporation can do what they like. (much like when most people on here said that donald trump being banned from Twitter was a private entity dictating it’s own rules.) I think thing that annoys me the most is that many people on here are huge hypocrites without even realising it.
I’d suggest the leak you saw is fake. If he had that clause then the statement earlier that he has been stood down until they could agree on his social media use wouldn’t make any sense would it? He clearly doesn’t have such a clause otherwise the statement would have said he was in breach of it. There are people on here are huge hypocrites and are highly inconsistent. It’s interesting that you of all people make that statement. I shouldn’t need to spell out why No answer to my specific question on what vaccine mandates had been put in place by the U.K. government? I didn’t think there would be somehow. Just like there was no answer to requests for the incontrovertible facts you claimed existed for a string of random positions. There never is
I guess we will find out if it’s real. Vaccine mandates were enforced at company level, to give governments plausible deniability Many people (my mrs being one) were told to take the covid vaccine, or they will lose their job. Whilst not being an official mandate, the fact that these sorts of policy were legally enforced, is essentially the same as a mandate. And are incredibly immoral and arguably broke human rights laws. The more data that comes out over time, the more immoral this looks.
I agree. It's a stretch to think that a large percentage of people have such backward opinions. Even Eddie Izzard's agent doesn't think about them that much.
You have straw-manned this twice now. Nobody ever said government does not influence the media (and vice versa by the way), but the vast majority of influence is from right wing media appeasing and promoting right wing politicians. Trump and Bojo were absolutely the darlings of the media and the media is still working against any urge towards socialism that would reduce the wealth of the elite in favour of the poor.
"Many in the media have biases" =/= "the Biden administration has opened up a wormhole through space and time that allowed them to influence events before they even ****ing existed".
They are going to dig in with this I think. 5Live just had an interview with a crisis management PR person and they made it all about ‘What does Lineker need to do’, how the weight of public opinion appears to be behind this decision, how MOTD viewing figures will probably rise (it might out of curiosity tonight tbf) and how Lineker can be better paid if he works somewhere else. No real attempt at balancing the conversation either. Also they are reading out more messages supportive of their decision than against, but that doesn’t reflect the balance of conversation I have been seeing and hearing, it is very divisive but at best it’s 50/50, they are weighting it as in line with the majority of the public.
Let’s show them the majority of the public are on the side of the good guys. And make no mistake, there is clear and unequivocal division here between right and wrong; this is about our collective values, and what sort of place we want the U.K. to be. https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/reinstate-gary-lineker-to-match-of-the-day
Well said Armado Iannucci . BBC should be be curious about people's opinions - satirist We've been hearing from the writer and satirist Armando Iannucci, who's been defending Gary Lineker's right to tweet opinions. He says "public faces on the BBC shouldn't be expected to toe the government and state line", adding "that's just part of what an independent broadcaster is". Speaking to Evan Davis on Radio 4's PM programme earlier, he adds:"The offending tweet was actually factually correct in that he didn't compare the government to the Nazis, he said the language being used about immigration is not dissimilar to the language used in Germany in the 1930s, which is absolutely correct." Quote Message: It's lazy to say he was comparing the policy to the Nazis. He wasn't, he was comparing the language and the climate to certain aspects of what was going on in the 1930s." from Armando Iannucci It's lazy to say he was comparing the policy to the Nazis. He wasn't, he was comparing the language and the climate to certain aspects of what was going on in the 1930s." Armando Iannucci Iannucci also says there are other examples of presenters showing opinions while working for the BBC. "For example, Andrew Neil is an amazing presenter, but we know what his views are and he's stated them on Twitter. If we assume someone is professional and can do their job, then what they say privately on media away from the BBC, it shouldn't be a concern," he says. "People are confusing impartiality with 'im-curiosity' and I think it's the duty of the BBC to be curious about what's being said."
It's curious this situation. I don't remember this much outcry, or solidarity from their fellow presenters, when the likes of Piers Morgan or Matt Le Tiss lost their jobs for having a public (even unpopular) opinion. I guess cos Lineker has a popular and more agreeable opinion, it's different,but at the end of the day, free speech is free speech nomatter whether you agree with it or not.
Le Tiss is slightly different, as he went at the same time as Thompson and one of the others, as they wanted a refresh, so it wasn't ostensibly about his opinions (though I'm sure that didn't help).
Can’t claim to know what’s in his contract with the BBC, but the impression I get is that he wasn’t under any obligation to neutrality outside of the studios, what has happened here is the BBC want to amend this and until he agrees to it he is off air. Could well be wrong though.
