Stop voting for fucking Tories

[SaintK]

Neatly summed up here. Not ssure what the "sensitive content" is!!

[Paddington Bear]

As a wag put it on Twitter, that'll teach the BBC to employ strikers.

What a craven bunch - they've also decided against broadcasting the final episode of the new Attenborough series
on air for fear of engaging the usual right wing cunts. It talks about habitat destruction and climate change. "But you can see it on iplayer".

Digging into this a little bit, the WWF and RSPB pages about the series describes it as a five part series? They have apparently co-funded the documentary. It does seem unusual though as many of Sir David's recent documentaries have included an episode on our impact on the environment and climate change.

The BBC bought the sixth as something for Iplayer and never intended to broadcast it, as you say it was a five part series with the other made for the WWF. Amazing how many people on twitter etc pivot straight from ‘lol those gammons will swallow anything they read in the Daily Mail’ to believing the BBC cancelled David Attenborough.

[I like neeps]

And Alex Scott.

If anyone does agree to host they're going to want a public statement from Lineker he's cool with them doing so, at minimum along the lines of he doesn't want a story about him to overshadow the football, but even that would be scant cover

Football media is a tough gig to get recognition, I'm sure they'll get some C-listers.

They should bring Le Tissier involved. He's of the right political opinions to do well at the BBC.

It doesn't look like they can get anyone to present, & the disgust at the actions of the Beeb has reached as far as the current players.

We have been informed that players involved in today’s games will not be asked to participate in interviews with Match of the Day.

The PFA have been speaking to members who wanted to take a collective position and to be able to show their support for those who have chosen not to be part of tonight’s programme.

During those conversations we made clear that, as their union, we would support all members who might face consequences for choosing not to complete their broadcast commitments.

This is a common sense decision that ensures players won’t now be put in that position.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/ ... ff7c2bbafc

The genius running the Beeb might be able to hook people up with 800k bungs, but he knows SFA about PR.

Until Lineker is re-instated; I wouldn't recommend sticking a microphone in front of any player; & the longer the Beeb tries holding out, the worse it'll get

I mean the guys running the Beeb are Conservatives who have been placed there to systematically chip away and ruin the BBC.

[tabascoboy]

"damaging to Britain's image" - rather minor compared to how the Government is doing the same globally and to a far greater extent

Someone who has come out in support of the BBC is billionaire and philanthropist John Caudwell.

He is well known as the founder of former retailer Phones 4U, and is a major donor to the Conservative party - he gave the Tories £500,000 ahead of the 2019 general election.

Writing on Twitter, Caudwell says the "circus" around Lineker "distracts from the real issues with refugees".

"It's fine to have an opinion and express it in a fair way," he says.

"But as British taxpayers pay his salary, he should be promoting Britain not comparing the country to Nazi Germany.

"That’s unpatriotic and damaging to Britain's image!"

[sockwithaticket]

As a wag put it on Twitter, that'll teach the BBC to employ strikers.

What a craven bunch - they've also decided against broadcasting the final episode of the new Attenborough series
on air for fear of engaging the usual right wing cunts. It talks about habitat destruction and climate change. "But you can see it on iplayer".

Digging into this a little bit, the WWF and RSPB pages about the series describes it as a five part series? They have apparently co-funded the documentary. It does seem unusual though as many of Sir David's recent documentaries have included an episode on our impact on the environment and climate change.

The BBC bought the sixth as something for Iplayer and never intended to broadcast it, as you say it was a five part series with the other made for the WWF. Amazing how many people on twitter etc pivot straight from ‘lol those gammons will swallow anything they read in the Daily Mail’ to believing the BBC cancelled David Attenborough.

How common is that, though? I genuinely don't know, but I've not seen anything on the iPlayer that doesn't have a 'first broadcast on date', so it strikes me as odd that this thing in particular would be an iPlayer exclusive. Given the Tories at the top of the BBC, I can't help but be cynical and suspect that it has a whiff of retroactive justification about it.

Of course it could just be that my interests haven't really intersected with anything that hasn't had a full broadcast and thus am blissfully ignorant of a plethora of content that is direct to iPlayer.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

As a wag put it on Twitter, that'll teach the BBC to employ strikers.

What a craven bunch - they've also decided against broadcasting the final episode of the new Attenborough series
on air for fear of engaging the usual right wing cunts. It talks about habitat destruction and climate change. "But you can see it on iplayer".

Digging into this a little bit, the WWF and RSPB pages about the series describes it as a five part series? They have apparently co-funded the documentary. It does seem unusual though as many of Sir David's recent documentaries have included an episode on our impact on the environment and climate change.

The BBC bought the sixth as something for Iplayer and never intended to broadcast it, as you say it was a five part series with the other made for the WWF. Amazing how many people on twitter etc pivot straight from ‘lol those gammons will swallow anything they read in the Daily Mail’ to believing the BBC cancelled David Attenborough.

If it has no David Attenborough, nor Liz Bonnin, Kate Humble etc then perhaps fair enough. If it has any of its better known presenters the idea the BBC who'd show a repeat of the old BBC2 scoreboard didn't intend to air it is... questionable. And if it's all desperately unfair perhaps the current government shouldn't be spending political capital clamping down on those who disagree with them by trying to cancel them or labelling them unpatriotic. One might also wonder should Labour win the next election does it then follow any Tory not agreeing with a Labour government then find themselves being unpatriotic in turn?

[Paddington Bear]

Digging into this a little bit, the WWF and RSPB pages about the series describes it as a five part series? They have apparently co-funded the documentary. It does seem unusual though as many of Sir David's recent documentaries have included an episode on our impact on the environment and climate change.

The BBC bought the sixth as something for Iplayer and never intended to broadcast it, as you say it was a five part series with the other made for the WWF. Amazing how many people on twitter etc pivot straight from ‘lol those gammons will swallow anything they read in the Daily Mail’ to believing the BBC cancelled David Attenborough.

How common is that, though? I genuinely don't know, but I've not seen anything on the iPlayer that doesn't have a 'first broadcast on date', so it strikes me as odd that this thing in particular would be an iPlayer exclusive. Given the Tories at the top of the BBC, I can't help but be cynical and suspect that it has a whiff of retroactive justification about it.

Of course it could just be that my interests haven't really intersected with anything that hasn't had a full broadcast and thus am blissfully ignorant of a plethora of content that is direct to iPlayer.

There's loads of this sort of stuff on Iplayer, as a few weeks on furlough revealed to me a few years ago. And what do the Tories stand to lose from a daytime tv nature documentary?

[sockwithaticket]

The BBC bought the sixth as something for Iplayer and never intended to broadcast it, as you say it was a five part series with the other made for the WWF. Amazing how many people on twitter etc pivot straight from ‘lol those gammons will swallow anything they read in the Daily Mail’ to believing the BBC cancelled David Attenborough.

How common is that, though? I genuinely don't know, but I've not seen anything on the iPlayer that doesn't have a 'first broadcast on date', so it strikes me as odd that this thing in particular would be an iPlayer exclusive. Given the Tories at the top of the BBC, I can't help but be cynical and suspect that it has a whiff of retroactive justification about it.

Of course it could just be that my interests haven't really intersected with anything that hasn't had a full broadcast and thus am blissfully ignorant of a plethora of content that is direct to iPlayer.

There's loads of this sort of stuff on Iplayer, as a few weeks on furlough revealed to me a few years ago. And what do the Tories stand to lose from a daytime tv nature documentary?

Well, there is a long gestating conflict between the general antipathy of ministers and donors towards environmental issues and party members/reliable Tory voters. The grey hairs like walks in woods, living in the countryside, hedgehogs, robins and so on. My own parents have viciously turned against the party over the last decade well still being lukewarm about Labour. What the Conservatives really don't need is a lot of those people viewing something that attacks what's been allowed to happen to British nature at least partly on their watch via the BBC which still commands a lot of trust in that demographic. Relegating it to the iPlayer means a lot of that audience won't find it.

Then you only have to look at the above comments from a major Tory donor about Linekar 'making the country look bad' and plenty of comments from ministers during the Brexit deal years that effectively amounted to "people's attitudes are the problem" - they don't like stuff that challenges the image they want to project of the version of Britain that they've created, they like to exert control where possible.

[Paddington Bear]

How common is that, though? I genuinely don't know, but I've not seen anything on the iPlayer that doesn't have a 'first broadcast on date', so it strikes me as odd that this thing in particular would be an iPlayer exclusive. Given the Tories at the top of the BBC, I can't help but be cynical and suspect that it has a whiff of retroactive justification about it.

Of course it could just be that my interests haven't really intersected with anything that hasn't had a full broadcast and thus am blissfully ignorant of a plethora of content that is direct to iPlayer.

There's loads of this sort of stuff on Iplayer, as a few weeks on furlough revealed to me a few years ago. And what do the Tories stand to lose from a daytime tv nature documentary?

Well, there is a long gestating conflict between the general antipathy of ministers and donors towards environmental issues and party members/reliable Tory voters. The grey hairs like walks in woods, living in the countryside, hedgehogs, robins and so on. My own parents have viciously turned against the party over the last decade well still being lukewarm about Labour. What the Conservatives really don't need is a lot of those people viewing something that attacks what's been allowed to happen to British nature at least partly on their watch via the BBC which still commands a lot of trust in that demographic. Relegating it to the iPlayer means a lot of that audience won't find it.

Then you only have to look at the above comments from a major Tory donor about Linekar 'making the country look bad' and plenty of comments from ministers during the Brexit deal years that effectively amounted to "people's attitudes are the problem" - they don't like stuff that challenges the image they want to project of the version of Britain that they've created, they like to exert control where possible.

It wasn't relegated to Iplayer - it was never intended to be on TV! Not everything is a conspiracy.

[Lobby]

The Lineker saga is only impacting football coverage today, but as practically all sports coverage has been pulled from BBCTV and Radio 5 Live, I wonder if the presenters and commentators for tomorrow’s 6N match on the BBC will also feel under pressure to follow suit and refuse to appear?

Could we see Scotland v Ireland without commentary or would the BBC replace it with reruns of Bargain Hunt and Homes under the Hammer?

[fishfoodie]

I wonder if Lineker would be interested in running as an Independent against the blonde turd, whenever he settles on a "safe" seat ?

[sockwithaticket]

There's loads of this sort of stuff on Iplayer, as a few weeks on furlough revealed to me a few years ago. And what do the Tories stand to lose from a daytime tv nature documentary?

Well, there is a long gestating conflict between the general antipathy of ministers and donors towards environmental issues and party members/reliable Tory voters. The grey hairs like walks in woods, living in the countryside, hedgehogs, robins and so on. My own parents have viciously turned against the party over the last decade well still being lukewarm about Labour. What the Conservatives really don't need is a lot of those people viewing something that attacks what's been allowed to happen to British nature at least partly on their watch via the BBC which still commands a lot of trust in that demographic. Relegating it to the iPlayer means a lot of that audience won't find it.

Then you only have to look at the above comments from a major Tory donor about Linekar 'making the country look bad' and plenty of comments from ministers during the Brexit deal years that effectively amounted to "people's attitudes are the problem" - they don't like stuff that challenges the image they want to project of the version of Britain that they've created, they like to exert control where possible.

It wasn't relegated to Iplayer - it was never intended to be on TV! Not everything is a conspiracy.

Well, that's what the Beeb hierarchy say now that the decision has caught some attention. Not everything no, but I don't trust a word anyone connected to the Tory party says and they've earnt that level of scepticism.

[Paddington Bear]

I wonder if Lineker would be interested in running as an Independent against the blonde turd, whenever he settles on a "safe" seat ?

I think this is the crux of why I find the whole Lineker saga amusing more than anything.

I find Nazi comparisons very tedious and pretty indicative of how little history or politics most of our 'elites' for want a better word are aware of. There's loads of good examples of populist policies like the Tories running into trouble that don't end up at death camps (and to be clear year 25 of a Tory government would not end in death camps, obviously). Lineker though is a very good communicator, has name recognition any politician would kill for and has been IMHO pushing for this sort of 'suicide by cop' for a while. I suspect he may well unseat a senior Tory at the next election now.

[Paddington Bear]

Well, there is a long gestating conflict between the general antipathy of ministers and donors towards environmental issues and party members/reliable Tory voters. The grey hairs like walks in woods, living in the countryside, hedgehogs, robins and so on. My own parents have viciously turned against the party over the last decade well still being lukewarm about Labour. What the Conservatives really don't need is a lot of those people viewing something that attacks what's been allowed to happen to British nature at least partly on their watch via the BBC which still commands a lot of trust in that demographic. Relegating it to the iPlayer means a lot of that audience won't find it.

Then you only have to look at the above comments from a major Tory donor about Linekar 'making the country look bad' and plenty of comments from ministers during the Brexit deal years that effectively amounted to "people's attitudes are the problem" - they don't like stuff that challenges the image they want to project of the version of Britain that they've created, they like to exert control where possible.

It wasn't relegated to Iplayer - it was never intended to be on TV! Not everything is a conspiracy.

Well, that's what the Beeb hierarchy say now that the decision has caught some attention. Not everything no, but I don't trust a word anyone connected to the Tory party says and they've earnt that level of scepticism.

Or alternatively the charities involved are saying this. People shouldn't be so credulous, or if they are should be more careful with 'lol Daily Mail' stuff, was my point.

This government are 25 points down in the polls and can't run a bath - the idea they're censoring nature documentaries (when there's already been five in the series) to win an election is laughable, and if they tried they'd probably cock it up and end up with Coffey sitting on a kitten on camera or something.

[GogLais]

I wonder if Lineker would be interested in running as an Independent against the blonde turd, whenever he settles on a "safe" seat ?

I may have dreamt this but wasn't there talk of his being a non-MP Lib Dem leader a couple of years ago?

[GogLais]

MoTD without pundits apparently. I wonder if the viewers will prefer that.

[_Os_]

"damaging to Britain's image" - rather minor compared to how the Government is doing the same globally and to a far greater extent

Someone who has come out in support of the BBC is billionaire and philanthropist John Caudwell.

He is well known as the founder of former retailer Phones 4U, and is a major donor to the Conservative party - he gave the Tories £500,000 ahead of the 2019 general election.

Writing on Twitter, Caudwell says the "circus" around Lineker "distracts from the real issues with refugees".

"It's fine to have an opinion and express it in a fair way," he says.

"But as British taxpayers pay his salary, he should be promoting Britain not comparing the country to Nazi Germany.

"That’s unpatriotic and damaging to Britain's image!"

Reminds me of Hlaudi Motsoeneng at the SABC demanding the news be patriotic (meaning that it supports the ANC and then president Zuma). He tried to institute a quota of 70% "patriotic news" from "patriotic journalists" (ie ANC stooges). Motsoeneng is/was insane. None of it worked either, the truth remained the truth and the ANC kept losing support.

Unless someone is a politician (a paid public representative), what they say in their own time should be their own business. If they need to be impartial or apolitical in their work, then their work should be what's measured not their entire life. This one is a no brainer. But the UK doesn't really have free speech, so it's not surprising this can happen.

[sockwithaticket]

It wasn't relegated to Iplayer - it was never intended to be on TV! Not everything is a conspiracy.

Well, that's what the Beeb hierarchy say now that the decision has caught some attention. Not everything no, but I don't trust a word anyone connected to the Tory party says and they've earnt that level of scepticism.

Or alternatively the charities involved are saying this. People shouldn't be so credulous, or if they are should be more careful with 'lol Daily Mail' stuff, was my point.

This government are 25 points down in the polls and can't run a bath - the idea they're censoring nature documentaries (when there's already been five in the series) to win an election is laughable, and if they tried they'd probably cock it up and end up with Coffey sitting on a kitten on camera or something.

Obviously they're not doing it directly, but there's a reason they've installed donors at the top of the Beeb. It's to make sure that the 'right' (i.e. those in their interest) decisions are being made.

[Paddington Bear]

Well, that's what the Beeb hierarchy say now that the decision has caught some attention. Not everything no, but I don't trust a word anyone connected to the Tory party says and they've earnt that level of scepticism.

Or alternatively the charities involved are saying this. People shouldn't be so credulous, or if they are should be more careful with 'lol Daily Mail' stuff, was my point.

This government are 25 points down in the polls and can't run a bath - the idea they're censoring nature documentaries (when there's already been five in the series) to win an election is laughable, and if they tried they'd probably cock it up and end up with Coffey sitting on a kitten on camera or something.

Obviously they're not doing it directly, but there's a reason they've installed donors at the top of the Beeb. It's to make sure that the 'right' (i.e. those in their interest) decisions are being made.

I have sympathy for this on Lineker/news editorials, it’s just total bollocks on the nature documentary and most of the people falling for it should be smarter than that

[Tichtheid]

The real story isn't about Lineker or a tv documentary, the real story is the abhorrent and illegal immigration policy.

I imagine the government will be quite happy with the deflection among those that wouldn't vote for them, all the while appealing to the basest of instincts among those who support them.

[sockwithaticket]

Or alternatively the charities involved are saying this. People shouldn't be so credulous, or if they are should be more careful with 'lol Daily Mail' stuff, was my point.

This government are 25 points down in the polls and can't run a bath - the idea they're censoring nature documentaries (when there's already been five in the series) to win an election is laughable, and if they tried they'd probably cock it up and end up with Coffey sitting on a kitten on camera or something.

Obviously they're not doing it directly, but there's a reason they've installed donors at the top of the Beeb. It's to make sure that the 'right' (i.e. those in their interest) decisions are being made.

I have sympathy for this on Lineker/news editorials, it’s just total bollocks on the nature documentary and most of the people falling for it should be smarter than that

It's across all avenues imo. It catches little media attention, but there is a little war going on inside the National Trust with groups like Restore Trust attempting to overturn 'wokeness' like adding information about slavery links to various Trust properties. The battlegrounds are everywhere and no one can ever guess what will end up having significance. Ed Milliband took a mortal blow over how he ate a bacon sandwich.

[tabascoboy]

The real story isn't about Lineker or a tv documentary, the real story is the abhorrent and illegal immigration policy.

I imagine the government will be quite happy with the deflection among those that wouldn't vote for them, all the while appealing to the basest of instincts among those who support them.

Well more and more little sparks, we can but hope we start a fire...

[Hal Jordan]

Those Restore Trust arseholes were, unsurprisingly, a Tufton Street astroturfing group.

[Sandstorm]

Anyone know how Chesterfield United got on today?

[Tichtheid]

A mate on FB says MOTD will only show action from the right wing this evening

[fishfoodie]

A mate on FB says MOTD will only show action from the right wing this evening

It'll be like the Iranian coverage of the World Cup, with any shots of the crowd edited out when the "We Stand with Gary" banners start appearing.

[Biffer]

[C69]

[C69]

3 days of Junior Doctor strikes.
Well that fecks all my plans for the working week.

It's going to be interesting to say the least.

[Jim Lahey]

Half a million more viewers of MotD on Saturday than the previous week

I was one of them. Can't say I missed Lineker, Shearer or Wright too much. Think the BBC will ride this storm for a few weeks then bring in some C listers at a serious discount in wages to do the job.

[GogLais]

Half a million more viewers of MotD on Saturday than the previous week

I was one of them. Can't say I missed Lineker, Shearer or Wright too much. Think the BBC will ride this storm for a few weeks then bring in some C listers at a serious discount in wages to do the job.

Anyone know why there was no commentary either?

[C69]

Commentators also refused to work and a number of managers and players also refused to be interviewed If asked.
Apparently the World service (?) commentary is not able to be used.

The flagship sports show of the Beeb is now down the shitter.
They have really dropped a bollock over this

Suspending a football commentator for a tweet when the chairman is still working after donating £400K to the Tory Party and helping to arrange a near £1m loan.

Lol

[dpedin]

Commentators also refused to work and a number of managers and players also refused to be interviewed If asked.
Apparently the World service (?) commentary is not able to be used.

The flagship sports show of the Beeb is now down the shitter.
They have really dropped a bollock over this

Suspending a football commentator for a tweet when the chairman is still working after donating £400K to the Tory Party and helping to arrange a near £1m loan.

Lol


At scrum time the ball was being passed to the back of the Irish scrum.
It was hilarious to watch as a neutral.
Well I say neutral but Ireland are my second team.

It really does feel like a Tory witch-hunt gone wrong! Numerous examples appearing on twitter of BBC 'stars' making party political points on twatter and also of Tories using Nazi Germany examples when describing the Labour Party. The first time they have activated their well placed Tory moles in BBC has gone disastrously wrong and BBC Chairman/Blonde Bumblecunt loan meister has gone AWOL. Cnuts the load of them!

[Joost]

While what Lineker did was probably a breach of the impartiality rules, suspending him and creating this massive sh!t storm has been a spectacular piece of mismanagement by the Beeb.

Could the Chairman (who is apparently good friends with Lineker) not just have pulled him aside and said ‘look Gary, far be it from me to clip your wings on Twitter, you’re only a sports journo after all. But if you’re going to wade into the debate on the Govt’s latest abhorrent policy, do you think you could avoid comparing them to the f%cking Nazis? You know as well as I do that these chinless f%cks would love to scrap the licence fee and restructure us and having our highest-paid presenter spouting the sort of sh!t that a clueless 6th former would probably later reflect on as being a bit stupid and reactionary isn’t helping. Livelihoods depend on this sh!t. Right, now, I’ll tell them we’ve spoken and discussed the rules on impartiality and that you understand that there’s a subtle difference between having a horrible immigration policy and committing systemic genocide and repression of millions of people. Right. Lunch?’

[sockwithaticket]

While what Lineker did was probably a breach of the impartiality rules, suspending him and creating this massive sh!t storm has been a spectacular piece of mismanagement by the Beeb.

Could the Chairman (who is apparently good friends with Lineker) not just have pulled him aside and said ‘look Gary, far be it from me to clip your wings on Twitter, you’re only a sports journo after all. But if you’re going to wade into the debate on the Govt’s latest abhorrent policy, do you think you could avoid comparing them to the f%cking Nazis? You know as well as I do that these chinless f%cks would love to scrap the licence fee and restructure us and having our highest-paid presenter spouting the sort of sh!t that a clueless 6th former would probably later reflect on as being a bit stupid and reactionary isn’t helping. Livelihoods depend on this sh!t. Right, now, I’ll tell them we’ve spoken and discussed the rules on impartiality and that you understand that there’s a subtle difference between having a horrible immigration policy and committing systemic genocide and repression of millions of people. Right. Lunch?’

From what I saw Lineker likened policies to 1930s Germany, not the Holocaust, so it would appear that he's already aware of that difference.

[dpedin]

While what Lineker did was probably a breach of the impartiality rules, suspending him and creating this massive sh!t storm has been a spectacular piece of mismanagement by the Beeb.

Could the Chairman (who is apparently good friends with Lineker) not just have pulled him aside and said ‘look Gary, far be it from me to clip your wings on Twitter, you’re only a sports journo after all. But if you’re going to wade into the debate on the Govt’s latest abhorrent policy, do you think you could avoid comparing them to the f%cking Nazis? You know as well as I do that these chinless f%cks would love to scrap the licence fee and restructure us and having our highest-paid presenter spouting the sort of sh!t that a clueless 6th former would probably later reflect on as being a bit stupid and reactionary isn’t helping. Livelihoods depend on this sh!t. Right, now, I’ll tell them we’ve spoken and discussed the rules on impartiality and that you understand that there’s a subtle difference between having a horrible immigration policy and committing systemic genocide and repression of millions of people. Right. Lunch?’

Not sure that Sharp is a friend of Lineker!

However the lack of coherent and clear guidelines, the issue of their application to staff v freelancers/contracted, the lack of consistency in application of them and the severity of the 'punishment' taken against how they have dealt with others would suggest that the BBC dont have a legal leg to stand on if this went to court. The BBC were always going to get legal advice to defuse and try and reconcile otherwise they would be extremely embarrassed in court. They also stand to lose the support of the whole of the footballing community and face significant legal action from the Premier League and FA if the Cup isn't covered as agreed.

However this is all a moot point now as the BBC have declared they are backing down, reinstating Lineker and carrying out a 'review' involving an external expert. Lineker has said he is glad to get back to work but no apology.

Tory right wingers will now be furious their play has back fired and they will be launching furious attacks now against the weak, woke, leftist BBC in 3 ... 2 .... 1 ....

[Slick]

While what Lineker did was probably a breach of the impartiality rules, suspending him and creating this massive sh!t storm has been a spectacular piece of mismanagement by the Beeb.

Could the Chairman (who is apparently good friends with Lineker) not just have pulled him aside and said ‘look Gary, far be it from me to clip your wings on Twitter, you’re only a sports journo after all. But if you’re going to wade into the debate on the Govt’s latest abhorrent policy, do you think you could avoid comparing them to the f%cking Nazis? You know as well as I do that these chinless f%cks would love to scrap the licence fee and restructure us and having our highest-paid presenter spouting the sort of sh!t that a clueless 6th former would probably later reflect on as being a bit stupid and reactionary isn’t helping. Livelihoods depend on this sh!t. Right, now, I’ll tell them we’ve spoken and discussed the rules on impartiality and that you understand that there’s a subtle difference between having a horrible immigration policy and committing systemic genocide and repression of millions of people. Right. Lunch?’

I enjoyed this post

[Joost]

While what Lineker did was probably a breach of the impartiality rules, suspending him and creating this massive sh!t storm has been a spectacular piece of mismanagement by the Beeb.

Could the Chairman (who is apparently good friends with Lineker) not just have pulled him aside and said ‘look Gary, far be it from me to clip your wings on Twitter, you’re only a sports journo after all. But if you’re going to wade into the debate on the Govt’s latest abhorrent policy, do you think you could avoid comparing them to the f%cking Nazis? You know as well as I do that these chinless f%cks would love to scrap the licence fee and restructure us and having our highest-paid presenter spouting the sort of sh!t that a clueless 6th former would probably later reflect on as being a bit stupid and reactionary isn’t helping. Livelihoods depend on this sh!t. Right, now, I’ll tell them we’ve spoken and discussed the rules on impartiality and that you understand that there’s a subtle difference between having a horrible immigration policy and committing systemic genocide and repression of millions of people. Right. Lunch?’

From what I saw Lineker likened policies to 1930s Germany, not the Holocaust, so it would appear that he's already aware of that difference.

In fact I believe he compared the language used to 1930s Germany, but if you’re going to invoke the Nazi comparison, I don’t think you can really separate that from the holocaust (“No, no, you misunderstand. I didn’t mean the genocidal, death camp Nazis of the 1940s. I meant the book burning, window smashing Nazis of the 1930s”).

Personal bugbear - invoking the Nazis allows the Govt to avoid and distract from some incredibly serious concerns about this policy and paint opponents of the policy and the messaging around it as reactionary idiots, when in fact there are some very troubling things which they should be being pulled up on - saying that illegal migrants will have no modern slavery protections - so if you’re trafficked here you’re fair game?? What about those children that travelled here alone and were taken from a hotel by traffickers, no protection for them from exploitation?!

[Paddington Bear]

There does seem to be a very strange belief among intelligent liberals that 1930s Germany was a 'softly, softly' march to fascism rather than a government run by people who had attempted violent coups before, were beating the shit out of people in the streets, had their supporters yelling 'it is all the fault of the Jews' at their rallies in unison, and were pretty explicit about just about everything they would go on to do. The comparison is dumb and Lineker and a lot of others could find a lot of better examples that aren't so far fetched.

[sockwithaticket]

While what Lineker did was probably a breach of the impartiality rules, suspending him and creating this massive sh!t storm has been a spectacular piece of mismanagement by the Beeb.

Could the Chairman (who is apparently good friends with Lineker) not just have pulled him aside and said ‘look Gary, far be it from me to clip your wings on Twitter, you’re only a sports journo after all. But if you’re going to wade into the debate on the Govt’s latest abhorrent policy, do you think you could avoid comparing them to the f%cking Nazis? You know as well as I do that these chinless f%cks would love to scrap the licence fee and restructure us and having our highest-paid presenter spouting the sort of sh!t that a clueless 6th former would probably later reflect on as being a bit stupid and reactionary isn’t helping. Livelihoods depend on this sh!t. Right, now, I’ll tell them we’ve spoken and discussed the rules on impartiality and that you understand that there’s a subtle difference between having a horrible immigration policy and committing systemic genocide and repression of millions of people. Right. Lunch?’

From what I saw Lineker likened policies to 1930s Germany, not the Holocaust, so it would appear that he's already aware of that difference.

In fact I believe he compared the language used to 1930s Germany, but if you’re going to invoke the Nazi comparison, I don’t think you can really separate that from the holocaust (“No, no, you misunderstand. I didn’t mean the genocidal, death camp Nazis of the 1940s. I meant the book burning, window smashing Nazis of the 1930s”).

Personal bugbear - invoking the Nazis allows the Govt to avoid and distract from some incredibly serious concerns about this policy and paint opponents of the policy and the messaging around it as reactionary idiots, when in fact there are some very troubling things which they should be being pulled up on - saying that illegal migrants will have no modern slavery protections - so if you’re trafficked here you’re fair game?? What about those children that travelled here alone and were taken from a hotel by traffickers, no protection for them from exploitation?!

Eh, I think you can separate them, extreme xenophobia is still quite removed from genocide, but it's certainly naive to think that any such nuance would be allowed to exist in media discourse and you're right, it gives the government an opportunity to put on an act about being affronted by an extreme comparison and shift focus from substantive criticism.