Taxi for Lineker

[The Norton Cat]

Do you think any of that applies to Lineker.

Yes. I can see how comparing the government to political organisations in 1930s Germany, and all of the implications that carries with it, could be seen to be not in keeping with the BBC's values. Its completely different to a presenter making a joke or even to criticism of a policy. As I've said before, he doesn't make that analogy, there's no problem.

 

[The Norton Cat]

Is that not a bigger worry though, only being allowed to say what they want you to say?

Not sure what you mean. I don't see how appearing to be impartial is a problem.

 

[Smug in Boots]

Yes. I can see how comparing the government to political organisations in 1930s Germany, and all of the implications that carries with it, could be seen to be not in keeping with the BBC's values. Its completely different to a presenter making a joke or even to criticism of a policy. As I've said before, he doesn't make that analogy, there's no problem.

He was comparing the rhetoric, not the parties.

 

[vic9]

I was replying to someone who made two pretty serious claims.

First that many people on this forum are peed off that the government want to stop illegal immigrants. I invited him to name just one poster, of the many, who's said that. He couldn't back up his claim

"Why are so many of you peed off?"

He also claimed the opposition, in the House of Commons, has blocked the government's measures to sort out the mess. He couldn't back up that claim either.

"It's the opposition that has stopped the conservatives doing it what they REALLY wanted to doover thelast "12 years""

Can you back up your claim that the ECHR has blocked attempts to either prevent illegal immigrants coming here or to send them back? If you're right, and I've missed that, I'd be quite happy to apologise.

I could be wrong, but the way I have been reading and listening to the news on this subject the ECHR were and still are blocking the Rwanda policy,I’m not saying this is a good policy mind,but it MIGHT be a deterrent if left to materialise.
Even IF I’m right there’s no need for apologies marra, I have civilised debates with civilised people for what I believe in and not for point scoring

 

[The Norton Cat]

He was comparing the rhetoric, not the parties.

It still carries the same implications.

 

[Smug in Boots]

I could be wrong, but the way I have been reading and listening to the news on this subject the ECHR were and still are blocking the Rwanda policy,I’m not saying this is a good policy mind,but it MIGHT be a deterrent if left to materialise.
Even IF I’m right there’s no need for apologies marra, I have civilised debates with civilised people for what I believe in and not for point scoring

I think you are mate.

But blaming 'leftie lawyers' is an excuse used so often it becomes engrained in people's minds.

 

[Smug in Boots]

It still carries the same implications.

There were no implications.

He stated quite clearly that he was talking about the tone of the language.

The 'implications' are in the minds of people who want to see them tbh.

Off to work now, I'll ask my boss what opinions I'm allowed to express in my private life.

 

[The Norton Cat]

There were no implications.

He stated quite clearly that he was talking about the tone of the language.

The 'implications' are in the minds of people who want to see them tbh.

Then why mention 1930s Germany? There are plenty of other Nationalist movements who have used similar rhetoric that he could have referenced.

 

[vic9]

I think you are mate.

But blaming 'leftie lawyers' is an excuse used so often it becomes engrained in people's minds.

So I’m wrong in stating that the ECHR have not been involved in the Rwanda deal?
If true I’m shocked tbh,

 

[rooch 3]

Not sure what you mean. I don't see how appearing to be impartial is a problem.

But they aren’t being impartial if they allow one employee to say something and not another, that’s what I meant by worse only allowing what they want you to say.

 

[The Exile II]

Supposedly there'll be a resolution today.

Free for all both ways, with no whingeing when it happens to be the other side making the comments, or a tightening of the BBC policy. Either is fine.

 

[The Norton Cat]

But they aren’t being impartial if they allow one employee to say something and not another, that’s what I meant by worse only allowing what they want you to say.

Oh right! Totally agree with you. They should apply it across the board. The only thing I can see that makes a difference is the analogy that Lineker used.

 

[vic9]

So I’m wrong in stating that the ECHR have not been involved in the Rwanda deal?
If true I’m shocked tbh,

So I’m wrong in stating that the ECHR have not been involved in the Rwanda deal?
If true I’m shocked tbh,

I think you are mate.

But blaming 'leftie lawyers' is an excuse used so often it becomes engrained in people's minds.

Rwanda asylum policy: Migrants granted right to challenge https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64294461

 

[DH4]

There were no implications.

He stated quite clearly that he was talking about the tone of the language.

The 'implications' are in the minds of people who want to see them tbh.

Off to work now, I'll ask my boss what opinions I'm allowed to express in my private life.

 

[rooch 3]

Rwanda asylum policy: Migrants granted right to challenge https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64294461

£140.000.000 where do they honestly get these figures from, is this just more lining there mates back pockets. I can’t honestly see where they could of even spent a million for what they’ve done so far.

 

[Saf]

There were no implications.

He stated quite clearly that he was talking about the tone of the language.

The 'implications' are in the minds of people who want to see them tbh.

Off to work now, I'll ask my boss what opinions I'm allowed to express in my private life.

Ask your boss to explain the law to you. We've shown you several times, maybe if they explain it with cartoons, you might grasp it.

 

[Smug in Boots]

Ask your boss to explain the law to you. We've shown you several times, maybe if they explain it with cartoons, you might grasp it.

We

Which latest group are you the self elected spokesman for now, do the others know.

The BBC lawyers have spent days trying to establish the rules but you think you've explained their employment law in ten seconds

Seriously man, if you were a character in a sitcom people would say you were too far fetched.

 

[E.T. Fairfax]

Looks like Linekers coming back........****ING BOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

 

[The Exile II]

Looks like Linekers coming back........****ING BOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Sensible thing would be an amnesty for all followed by a significant tightening of the rules which all would then be expected to agree to as a condition of the amnesty.

Otherwise, see you in six months for the next one.

 

[Blond Bombshell]

Tim Davie statement...

"Complete climb dow" = "Proportionate Action"

"Too severe" = "Too lenient"

BBC are in a mess, out of touch with its people, led by a Conservative Director General and Conservative Chairman bowing to pressure of Conservative MPs (37 of whom have asked for Lineker to be sacked) and a Conservative press.

Impartiality is ruined.