You didn’t reply to the question.
If that's his view, why not? It has nothing to do with his role as a sports presenter so isn't a breach of his employment conditions.
You didn’t reply to the question.
Hang on. Who said anything about supporting the 'said policies'? Don't make stuff up.
It's nothing to do with whether someone supports the policies or not. He was bang out of order.
And think also about the many German people in this country who have to endure such stupid comments, and I'd guess many holocaust and war survivors / relatives who would take offence with such comparisons.
He just shouldn't go there as a way of supporting his views. End of. It really is that simple.
-> Good job that he didn't then. Would it hurt you to actually read what he said?
-> Did he compare government policy to 1930s Germany? In the quotes, he said that the dehumanising language used is reminiscent. That's quite a big difference.
Oh come on. The inferences are crystal clear.
Hang on. Who said anything about supporting the 'said policies'? Don't make stuff up.
It's nothing to do with whether someone supports the policies or not. He was bang out of order.
And think also about the many German people in this country who have to endure such stupid comments, and I'd guess many holocaust and war survivors / relatives who would take offence with such comparisons.
He just shouldn't go there as a way of supporting his views. End of. It really is that simple.
-> Good job that he didn't then. Would it hurt you to actually read what he said?
-> Did he compare government policy to 1930s Germany? In the quotes, he said that the dehumanising language used is reminiscent. That's quite a big difference.
Oh come on. The inferences are crystal clear.
But it is in breach of the impartiality of the BBC and he’s been told this. He either works within the same rules that apply to everyone else at the BBC or he doesn’t work there. I’ve no issue with what he said, he has every right to say it, but when he says it while employed at the BBC he jeopardises their impartiality. If he’s so intent on offering his opinion he should leave, as Andrew Marr did.If that's his view, why not? It has nothing to do with his role as a sports presenter so isn't a breach of his employment conditions.
But it is in breach of the impartiality of the BBC and he’s been told this. He either works within the same rules that apply to everyone else at the BBC or he doesn’t work there. I’ve no issue with what he said, he has every right to say it, but when he says it while employed at the BBC he jeopardises their impartiality. If he’s so intent on offering his opinion he should leave, as Andrew Marr did.
It applies to all BBC employees and to any government, I never suggested otherwise. I couldn’t care less which party is in power, what I do care about is not having very high profile and very highly paid presenters showing very obvious bias.Maybe Lord Sugar should be made aware too about the dear impartiality of the BBC.
Though I suppose it only applies if commenting against the sitting government. The poor dears.
It applies to all BBC employees and to any government, I never suggested otherwise. I couldn’t care less which party is in power, what I do care about is not having very high profile and very highly paid presenters showing very obvious bias.
Not my money, I don't have a tv license.Hopefully they won’t be getting paid for doing that
With our ****ing money
I don't particularly care what you suggest, I'm telling you how the BBC has acted. This is kind of why I called you naive.
You really don't see how you come across sometimes do you!
Their bosses also show very obvious bias. Just following suit.It applies to all BBC employees and to any government, I never suggested otherwise. I couldn’t care less which party is in power, what I do care about is not having very high profile and very highly paid presenters showing very obvious bias.
I'd probably give battered eyelids a try, if I could find them around here.During the hieght of the Black Lives Matter protests one local BBC radio presenter was guest speaker at a BLM protest meeting on Queens Gardens in Hull. He was introduced on stage as 'BBC's....' Even Look North covered it. No-one battered an eyelid around here.
Impartiality rules?I enjoy that the right cries about snowflakes and cancel culture and then screeches for Lineker to be cancelled for offering an opinion on Twitter that doesn't actually contravene BBC rules.
Impartiality rules?
I would record MOTD and then when I played it back I would fast forward past the 'pundits' talking nonsense.Haven't watched Motd in ages...Got sick of a bunch of talking heads discussing the bleeding obvious...If half of them were so good on tactics etc..etc...why aren't they out their earning their corn managing sides...Oh yeah, some of them tried that and failed eg Shearer...Might watch it tonight to see some football, might be novel.
I dont know what is in Lineker's contract but the BBC seems to think he's broken his contract.The BBC allows for comments on social media that aren't in relation to the presenter's role. The only rule that Lineker could arguably have breached is bringing the BBC into disrepute, but if anything his tweets improve the BBC's standing in the public's perception.
I would record MOTD and then when I played it back I would fast forward past the 'pundits' talking nonsense.
I dont know what is in Lineker's contract but the BBC seems to think he's broken his contract.