Surely that only leaves the programme editors from a BBC perspective, as aren't the cameramen & sound engineers all Sky employees?
Ok, up early and back to it.... I'm not sure that ultimately you can go beyond the international perspective. Those structures, be they created as the result of global wars or simple economic union, exist and the UK has willingly joined several - and questionably left one. Power Spurs made some interesting points about boundaries, as the council / county / country / UK level of legislative control is in many ways a microcosm of the international system. Can the UK (or any country) step outside of that framework? Yes, technically, but there will be an inevitable price to pay in doing so. And it also perhaps clouds the fundamental issue that you touched on. Exactly why is there a culture war around Immigration when the facts of the matter do not support the political 'noise' created. There is no 'invasion', the UK takes fewer refugees per capita and has one of the lowest population densities in Europe. The Leave Campaign was based on those proven lies and this current furore is just an extension of that populist rhetoric. Is there a refugee crisis in the fact that there are many displaced persons around the world, fleeing disaster, persecution, war, financial hardship or climate disturbance? Yes. In their millions. But only a fraction want to actually leave their own country and a fraction (I saw a figure of less than 100k would possibly arrive in the UK?) Equally, the burden placed on immediate neighbouring countries has to alleviated. Whether that be Greece, Turkey, Spain and Italy at the frontline in Europe for example. Whilst if you accept the premise that all (safe) developed countries should take a fair proportion of refugees, it is still within the control of individual countries to manage that process, whether that be by agreed international quotas ( eg EU / non-EEA) or specific immigration policies (such as US or Australia for instance). That then brings it back to the matter of how individual countries process immigration claimants arriving at borders. Do you provide a fast, safe and legal framework for this or do you follow the UK post-Brexit route - which by most considered analysis is Draconian, racist, probably illegal at an international level, prohibitively expensive....and ultimately ineffective? The UK can establish these processes with the EU and it looks as if the reality has started to hit home with Sunak contributing £500m to a joint project with France. However, I am ultimately not convinced that elements of the UKs political class want this problem solved. As to do so would largely undermine their entire raison d'etre.
No, they are not. They are caught in a dichotromy : how to remain as impartial as possible (to prevent the wrath of the govt and the BBC taxpayer) in the face of the heavy political leanings of the people who are drawn to work for them. And the bottom line is this : the former pay the bills, NOT the latter, Or to put it in simple numbers (for the Nth time) ... Lineker is paid 1.5m as an employee of (sorry - "service provider" to) MOTD . The BBC tax is 150 quid. Then if by being a gobsh*te he p*sses off a mere 10000 taxpayers who decide to no longer pay the tax in protest, who is going to make up the loss ?? How much of that 1.5m can I put you down for, so that you can have both Lineker doing his BBC job (sorry - "providing services" to the BBC) and continuing his gobshir*ery on Twatter ??
This is not the perception of the general public (rightly or wrongly) . And as they pay the BBC tax, I refer you to : https://www.not606.com/threads/the-politics-thread.323088/page-1303#post-16562368 and set the question there to you as well. And after I have had sufficient answers to that question, I will go again (but this time where Lineker works for a Sky Sports UK equivalent of MOTD) .
I am trying to understand your argument. Are you saying the BBC should be apolitical? I understand that you don't want BBC presenters to express their personal views but that's not a view shared by all licence payers as can be clearly seen by the support for Gary Lineker.
Really? Quantify or qualify 'heavy'? Apologies if I have misunderstood your position, but you appear to distancing this group - if they actually exist - from the Government and it's obviously far stronger political leanings and influence over the Corporation. Any organisation will have employees and contractors with disparate social and political opinion. That's life, I'm afraid. The argument (if understood correctly) that Linekers single, inoffensive and personal tweet causes 10000 souls to clutch pearls and withhold their licence fee doesn't really hold water, particularly as this situation is developing. The reaction of the hundreds of thousands outraged at the BBC's actions and total lack of consistency regarding impartiality to date would appear to be their major problem. Mind you, there is a strong suggestion that the Government are hell bent on destroying the BBC - and if so, this whole saga may just be part of their end game. It's certainly having the desired effect. Will certainly be an interesting few days....
The BBC by its charter forced to try and be as politically neutral as is possible Which is a noble goal. They are already under immense financial pressure purely on the (non)quality of their programming. I would not wish for that to be worsened because of being "tarred by association" due to the political opining of someone who takes a lot from their salary (sorry - "service provider" ) budget. "I understand that you don't want BBC presenters to express their personal views but that's not a view shared by all licence payers as can be clearly seen by the support for Gary Lineker." As I said, it only takes 10000 to not be supporting (which means my question remains) ...
Further to this.... Take a look (if your stomach can take it) at the commentary from Tory MP's at the moment. Yes, they are demeaning and critical of Lineker, but the real angle of attack is aimed at the BBC - attempting to portray it as a weak, unbalanced and out of control organisation: a breeding ground for anti-UK dissent. The Tory Party end game is to ditch the Licence Fee and effectively privatise the Corporation. They think this issue provides them with capital to support that plan. I'm not sure that they have read the room right....
I think the BBC are in error. They have tons of employees and cannot expect most of them to deny themselves expression on social media. I know it is because Lineker is the highest paid presenter which makes him high profile but he is not a political presenter so his views on politics are almost by definition private and not representing the BBC in any way. I think his comments were pretty dim but they do reflect how a lot of people think and in a country of free speech his comments are valid. I think MOTD is better without presenters and commentators anyway. When I use to watch it I used to have the volume down and listen to music. I don't need a commentray at live football and don't think much of it on telly
Whether or not 10000 licence payers would stop paying because of views expressed by a sports presenter is surely a shot in the dark. There are all kinds of reasons why people may stop paying the licence fee and I would guess that streaming of tv is the main one, another in Scotland is the way the BBC presented during the Scottish referendum. Where it is important for the BBC to be neutral is in it's presentation of the news and current affairs. I would argue that it's not because it tends to follow the status quo and the British State. In other programming it has to depend on the programme maker and subject as to how it comes out politically. I would hope that it tries to present factually correct numbers and I believe it probably does but you are still going to end up with a political position on subjects like poverty, war, housing, education and so on. Essentially Gary Lineker is a sports presenter who is as entitled to his private views as anyone else. He happens to have millions of followers which is the main reason the BBC employs him. If the BBC wants someone whose political views will not reach many people then ask me. I'm free. I will still express my views but only a few would care and that is the point. The BBC cannot have it's cake and eat it.
I would expect nothing less from politicians (never let a good opportunity go to waste etc) . On funding, the BBC sadly is a victim of its own collective hubris (a culture that spans decades) . There are still possibilities for a state-funded BBC that can demonstrate high(er possible) impartiality. But the likes of Lineker will be probably be getting paid a whole lot less ...
I contend there is a way for BBC taxypayers who support the Linekers to "eat their cake and have it" in the event of the above occurring. The question (as always) is how much they are prepared to pay for their slice of that cake ...
I don't want the BBC to incur potential costs to their bottom line for the gobsh*tery of someone who is on their payroll (sorry - being paid for "services provided" ) but whose "freedom of expression" people feel the BBC should have no control over. Perhaps a more equitable approach would be to "let the numbers decide" . Specifically, if aforementioned 10000 stop paying the BBC tax and state the reason as being 'because of what gobsh*te X twatted the other day; . then X gets each tax instance deducted from their wages (sorry - free for "services provided" ) .
Last week: Isabel Oakeshite makes herself the story, then it turns out she doesn't like it because making herself the story means she can be criticised This week: the BBC makes herself the story, then it turns out they doesn't like it because making herself the story means they can be criticised
They're doing what they do with everything, sabotaging it to sell it off. They've stuck their stooges in to **** it up, taken their backhanders and they're ****ing it up. This way they get another propaganda outlet and people care less when it dies.
Interested to know why you continue to refer to a private citizen making a simple short statement of opinion as a 'gobshite'. If you think he was breaching terms of his employment contract (he wasn't it seems) then he can be criticised for that potentially, but actually being abused for doing so appears, oh I don't know..... what's the word???
But life is politics. The BBC’s audience aren’t apolitical and the people they employ to write, present, produce etc their output aren’t either. They have views on issues and that will be reflected to a greater or lesser extent in what they say and do. Sport isn’t apolitical; Marcus Rashford’s efforts for free school meals shows certain political leanings based on his own upbringing. His actions were necessary because the government wouldn’t have acted without him (a high profile footballer) exerting some political influence. BBC presenters across TV and radio news, sports programming, daytime shows etc roundly praised him - often impliedly or even directly criticising the government for their inaction. There are many other issues in relation to which news programmes highlight government failings - poverty, housing disrepair and other “leftist” issues being recurring themes. Lineker has expressed his own views (not those of the BBC, whatever they may be) on what many see as a humanitarian issue. I don’t think the BBC has any right to censor him. And where do they draw the line if they did? As I say, life is politics. As for licence payers, they are subject to many political influences, most of which cannot be regulated by the BBC. People should be treated as being capable of making their own minds up about issues. Those who choose to object to paying the licence fee find many reasons for doing so - from the BBC trying to mimic ITV’s output on a Saturday night to them no longer having the broadcasting rights for most Crown Jewels sporting events to a principled objection to paying for a broadcaster whose programmes they may choose not to watch.
