Thread: Mess of the Day ,BBC flagship Match of the day stars walk out

Originally Posted by Troy

You mean the institution proposed by the British, as in Winston Churchill, and crafted by the British.

You silly fuckwit...

It was fit for purpose and much needed in those days.

Originally Posted by taxexile

It was fit for purpose and much needed in those days.

its now populated by useful idiots that every criminal and despot knows is their backstop at the expense of law and order in sovereign nations

Originally Posted by malmomike77

I do as i have no choice but to pay the licence fee if i want to watch TV in the UK - the sooner the licence is scrapped the better imo - the Beeb and its management can face reality in the competitive world.

You do have a choice. Just stop paying and when asked why tell them you dont watch live tv. They will leave you alone for 2 years and then ask again. Rinse and repeat. It is almost impossible for them to check and should their goons knock on your door, they have no authority whatsoever to enter. Their written threats are not worth the paper they are written on.

You can make your declaration and cancel your licence online.

Not a penny of my hard earned has been used to pay the bloated salaries of any smarmy newsreader, opinionated pundit, stupid presenter, lefty drama producer, raging poofter or butch carpet muncher that works for the oh so virtuous bbc for 6 years now. So fuck em.

Originally Posted by taxexile

It was fit for purpose and much needed in those days.

It's still fit for purpose, although it doesn't fit in with the UK's planned immigration measures. However, let's not forget that these measures are in breach of the UN rights for refugees. The UK knows it is breaking its commitments on Human Rights and it knows there will be challenges by the UN and ECHR. This is what the BBC should be reporting, not the views of a freelance sports pundit.

Anybody who is a top tier ambassador for a publicly funded national broadcaster with justified and clearly stated guidelines about political neutrality should accept that keeping one's political opinions to oneself comes with the territory

Good to see the BBC sticking to its guns

I wish there was somebody in control of this virtue-begging megaphone posturing at the ABC

Originally Posted by taxexile

You do have a choice. Just stop paying and when asked why tell them you dont watch live tv. They will leave you alone for 2 years and then ask again. Rinse and repeat. It is almost impossible for them to check and should their goons knock on your door, they have no authority whatsoever to enter. Their written threats are not worth the paper they are written on.

You can make your declaration and cancel your licence online.

Not a penny of my hard earned has been used to pay the bloated salaries of any smarmy newsreader, opinionated pundit, stupid presenter, lefty drama producer, raging poofter or butch carpet muncher that works for the oh so virtuous bbc for 6 years now. So fuck em.

This!

Originally Posted by Joe 90

This!

you've stopped paying yours Chit? what is your experience

Originally Posted by Joe 90

FUCK THE BBC

yep, right my declaration is tomorrow, fuk em too

the forum lovies like Troy and Syb can make up the shortfall

Originally Posted by malmomike77

yep, right my declaration is tomorrow, fuk em too

the forum lovies like Troy and Syb can make up the shortfall

Here you go...

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-...-a-tv-licence#

Originally Posted by malmomike77

Syb can make up the shortfall

Sybs never paid a tv licence in his life yet can argue its validity.
Just like he didn't vote on Brexit but remoans more than most

^ The beeb make money on advertising when their website is viewed from abroad.
Why would I like them? They won't be impartial until the top brass, that are in the Tory lap, are removed.

Enjoy MOTD...all 20 minutes of it! Not that I've really watched it since Jimmy Hill days.

Originally Posted by Joe 90

ou have to declare that you dont watch bbc iplayer and live tv every two years online.

but you do

Originally Posted by cyrille

"The programme will focus on match action rather than presentation or punditry" - beeb.


Alhamdulillah.

Now please make commentary optional for all sports.

Been watching this for over fifty years now. Think I can understand what I'm watching. These people are all massively overpaid.

Note: I'm not talking about post match analysis programmes or previews here.

All of that's done better on Sky and BT.

Commentary is already optional. It’s called the mute button.

Originally Posted by Looper

Anybody who is a top tier ambassador for a publicly funded national broadcaster with justified and clearly stated guidelines about political neutrality should accept that keeping one's political opinions to oneself comes with the territory

Good to see the BBC sticking to its guns

I wish there was somebody in control of this virtue-begging megaphone posturing at the ABC

They are not clearly stated guidelines. Reports are suggesting Lineker has not gone against his contract so it will be difficult to sack him. Problem is they may have to part company and others are likely to follow.

I have also read that the immigration policy effectively cuts off asylum seekers and many refugees. There are no legal routes for them to enter. No wonder the Tories are worried about breaking international law.

...and no wonder Lineker made such a comment. Can't see him backing down and apologising. BBC probably hoping it'll just blow over. They need a bigger story to pop up.

Originally Posted by Switch

I am not interested in a footballer giving me his opinion on politics. Neither am I interested in an F1 driver speaking his mind about fashion, trans or gay rights.

But he wasn't. On air he spoke about football.

This was a tweet in his private time on his own account. Should be nowt to do with his job.

Is he not allowed his now opinion on any topic he wants? Should football be the entirety of his life because he is a commentator?

Originally Posted by Troy

The disgrace is removal of refugee rights and the continual attempt to categorise them as migrants. They should not need to require a visa in order to enter the UK.

This^. It should be obvious to all bar the undereducated cretins singing 'Rule Britannia' after a few lagers.

Originally Posted by taxexile

How would you distinguish between a genuine refugee fleeing persecution and an economic migrant that has travelled through 3 or 4 safe countries in order to enter the UK.

Can't read, Taxi driver? I'll cnp it for you:

Originally Posted by Troy

providing immigration centres in Northern Europe to process applications.

Originally Posted by taxexile

So its an open door then. No restrictions.?????

Yes, because that's the only other option . . . Are you really this thick?

Originally Posted by malmomike77

not forgetting that farcical institution the ECHR

Ah yes, that one . . .

Originally Posted by Troy

You mean the institution proposed by the British, as in Winston Churchill, and crafted by the British.

You silly fuckwit...

Yes, that's the one he means . . . the one he didn't know the history of and what it even does and Cameron, Johnsn, Truss, Sunak and May have talked about quitting . . . What is it with you spineless cretins . . . quit it already. Stop talking about it and leave . . .

No wonder you're all so bothered about an ex-footballer having an opinion on bis personal twitter account . . . curtain-twitching whiners . . . what a mess

Daniel Hannan

Lineker’s tweets aren’t grounds to cancel him – but they do make the case for scrapping the BBC
The pundit’s remarks were crass and stupid, but have nothing to do with how he performs his job.

We can’t pick and choose when to defend free speech

Either cancel culture is a thing or it isn’t. If it is, and if we object to it, then we have no choice but to rally to Gary Lineker, suspended by the BBC over a series of anti-Tory tweets.

The phrase “cancel culture” is often used too vaguely. It doesn’t mean criticising a public figure for voicing an unfashionable opinion. It doesn’t mean organising a Twitter pile-on. It doesn’t mean unfriending someone on Facebook.

Cancel culture, in its raw form, means trying to get people sacked for voicing views that have nothing to do with their line of work. For example, demanding that a publisher drop an author because of her views on trans rights, or petitioning against an exhibition by an artist – even a long-dead artist – who doesn’t conform to your version of anti-racism.


If we need a plumber, we don’t fret about whether he fiddles his taxes, cheats on his wife or votes Lib Dem. But we do it to artists. To pluck a recent example more or less at random, several of Dr Seuss’s children’s books were withdrawn from print when it was recently found that the author had, among other supposedly atrocious crimes, drawn a cartoon of a Chinese man with braids eating from a bowl with chopsticks.

We consider footballers, at least in this sense, to be artists. Recall how, in 1999, Glenn Hoddle was sacked as England manager for saying that physical disabilities were caused by negative karma. That view is held by many Buddhists and Hindus but, in an early example of cancel culture, Tony Blair decided that it was inexcusable for a white man to voice it.



For what it’s worth, I consider Lineker’s reaction to tightening the rules on illicit migration to be almost unbelievably crass. Reductio ad hitlerum is always a terrible argument, and rarely more so than when it is deployed against the daughter of immigrant parents, a woman whose children are descended from Holocaust survivors.

Lineker described the approach set out in a short video by Suella Braverman as “an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s”.

Hmmm. By way of illustration, let’s compare the Home Secretary’s language with that used by the Nazi dictator.

Here is Adolf Hitler: “If the international Jewish financiers should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.”

Here, in the video that so upset Lineker, is Braverman: “We are committed to helping those in need, like the hundreds of thousands of people we have supported from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong in recent years. But it’s not fair that people who travel through a string of safe countries and then come to the UK illegally can jump the queue.”

I’d say there was a pretty marked difference between the two. But plenty of Twitter users will disagree – an attitude captured in the catchy 2017 song Everyone I Don’t Like is Literally Hitler. Many secondary schools focus disproportionately on the rise of Nazism, and many young people like to catastrophise, seeing any political development they dislike as a mortal danger. The combination of these two tendencies leads to what the commentator Ed West calls political hypochondria – a readiness to see fascism everywhere.

Lineker has reminded us that you don’t have to be young to be juvenile. As the row boiled over, he tweeted: “I have never known such love and support in my life than [sic] I’m getting this morning (England World Cup goals aside, possibly). I want to thank each and every one of you. It means a lot. I’ll continue to try and speak up for those poor souls that have no voice. Cheers all.”

Right, Gary. Just like Nazi Germany, eh? Where, as we all know, opponents of the regime were fêted by fans and mobbed by the media. But, to repeat, Lineker is not paid as an historian or a political commentator. He is paid as a sports presenter.

Ah, say critics, but the BBC is different. It is obliged by its charter to be impartial. What’s more (they go on) Lineker owes his public pre-eminence largely to his BBC job. It has been nearly 30 years since he last played in a professional game. The reason that he has a continuing national voice, not least on Twitter, is that he is paid by you, the viewer. This (they conclude) gives every licence-fee payer a stake in him, which is why he should stay off contentious subjects.

In truth, though, this isn’t an argument against Lineker. It’s an argument against the licence fee. There is no way that the BBC, or any broadcaster, can be impartial. Even if it somehow cauterised its presenters’ opinion glands in some painful operation, no two viewers would agree on what constituted neutrality. The argument for a state broadcaster was already pitifully weak in an age of Netflix and YouTube. L’affaire Lineker does not make it any stronger.

Two closing thoughts. First, however offended they might be by his Nazi comparisons, the Conservatives won’t be unhappy that Lineker has put its immigration reforms on the front pages. For a policy to be truly popular, voters need to understand that it is being forced through in the face of opposition – an insight often attributed to Bill Clinton’s brilliant strategist, Dick Morris.

The only thing better than having Lineker insult supporters of tighter border control would be for Emma Thompson, Meryl Streep, Daniel Radcliffe and Benjamin Zephaniah to make a video, complete with schmaltzy music, attacking the policy – which, right on cue, they have. No amount of being talked down to by celebs will shift voters from their view that it is fundamentally wrong for young men from safe countries to jump the queue. But the more that policy is attacked, the higher it will rise up the agenda.

Second, Lineker’s descent from goal-scoring hero to irritating luvvie has been played out on, and largely caused by, Twitter. That medium might have been expressly designed to push sensible people into saying silly things. It has a way of degrading and diminishing its users, and has done so in this case.

By all means call Lineker out for his jejune opinions. Feel free to criticise him for his exceptional BBC salary. Do, come to that, campaign for the BBC to be made independent of the state. But to suspend someone because he holds a controversial opinion? To make it a condition of his employment that he should not opine on unrelated matters? Please – let’s hold ourselves to a higher standard. We don’t always have to make everything about everything.
Daily Telegraph.

This, although I still think he should go because he is both a tax dodging hypocrite and a thick footballer with little insight into the ways of the world outside of his protected and privileged bubble of luvviedom.

It’s no surprise that all the idiots on this thread are BREXITers.

Originally Posted by Troy

^ The beeb make money on advertising when their website is viewed from abroad.
Why would I like them? They won't be impartial until the top brass, that are in the Tory lap, are removed.

Enjoy MOTD...all 20 minutes of it! Not that I've really watched it since Jimmy Hill days.

It was like watching a quickly put together YouTube video.

Originally Posted by Joe 90

It pisses me off that I even have to sign a declaration.

They made you sign a declaration? piss off 5555 that is hilarious mate, did two guys come round with the declaration?

Originally Posted by taxexile

a tax dodging hypocrite

Originally Posted by taxexile

taxexile