The on topic thread 4.0

[Cruyff14]

It's a football highlights show FFS. Most people don't care about the politics. They just want to chill out after putting the kids to bed or having a couple of pints at the pub.

MOTD definitely needs a freshen up. It's been the same puerile bantz between the boys for a few years. My guess is that Lineker and his mates will be reinstated in the short term but in the medium term the BBC will opt for presenters who won't challenge their impartiality guidelines. In the longer term there are implications for whether MOTD is relevant any more, or greater questions around the BBC being a government controlled broadcaster funded by a mandatory license fee.

If people don't care about the politics they don't need to read his Twitter feed. It's not really as complicated as you are making out.

 

[Frank Bunn]

If people don't care about the politics they don't need to read his Twitter feed. It's not really as complicated as you are making out.

Apart from it being on the front page of every media outlet for the past week?

 

[Bradesmaen]

See you're triggered. You moaned that it's the right doing all this kind of stuff when it was the left who started it. What you're seeing now is one side using the tactics the other side employed.

It's called tit for tat.

She was historically correct about her statement regarding what was happening leading up to and during WW2.

If you don't think that then it's you who is historically thick in that instance.

The only people who aren't trying to cancel anyone are the true Liberals, the true Liberaltarians and the Anarchists.

Making fun of masks, oh the horror!

I never said anything about cancelling her out or making her stop her tweets. I simply said she was simply incorrect.

 

[Cruyff14]

Apart from it being on the front page of every media outlet for the past week?

They don't need to read his Twitter feed either. Again, not complicated.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

The BBC statement literally says the social media guidelines are unclear which led to this situation, and that's why they need a review of the social media policy.



Don't they? Glad we have you to speak on their behalf so we don't have to understand what the public actually gives a s**t about.

You seem to be confusing what people do in their private time as compared to when they're in their place of employment.

“Everyone recognises this has been a difficult period for staff, contributors, presenters and, most importantly, our audiences. I apologise for this. The potential confusion caused by the grey areas of the BBC’s social media guidance that was introduced in 2020 is recognised. I want to get matters resolved and our sport content back on air.

“Impartiality is important to the BBC. It is also important to the public. The BBC has a commitment to impartiality in its Charter and a commitment to freedom of expression. That is a difficult balancing act to get right where people are subject to different contracts and on air positions, and with different audience and social media profiles.


“The BBC’s social media guidance is designed to help manage these sometimes difficult challenges and I am aware there is a need to ensure that the guidance is up to this task. It should be clear, proportionate, and appropriate.

“Accordingly, we are announcing a review led by an independent expert – reporting to the BBC – on its existing social media guidance, with a particular focus on how it applies to freelancers outside news and current affairs. The BBC and myself are aware that Gary is in favour of such a review.

“Shortly, the BBC will announce who will conduct that review. Whilst this work is undertaken, the BBC’s current social media guidance remains in place."

Sounds like the Independent review will be closing the bullshit 'freelance' loophole.

I don't know how many times it needs to be explained but the BBC Charter demands impartiality. This is not limited to when you are working day to day to the BBC. When you work for a business you represent that business inside and outside of working hours.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Then perhaps they need to have someone sit them down and explain what following someone's personal social media page actually means. But I'm sure in reality they are aware and aren't half as moronic as you're making them out to be.

How hard is in to follow the BBC impartiality charter? It's a condition of employment. There are plenty of other networks to work on where this isn't a requirement

 

[Bostonian]

I never said anything about cancelling her out or making her stop her tweets. I simply said she was simply incorrect.

And I pointed out the thing which she got a lot of moaners moaning over was historically correct.

Far more factual than what Lineker hinted at.

It's more akin to Biden turning back boats from Haiti, not Nazi Germany.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Yeah can't get on Bojan's way of thinking at all.

Lineker's twitter account is just that, his. If he was bringing this up on MOTD then he has a point.

Isn't Lineker a freelancer anyway? Thought I read he wasn't technically a BBC employee (not that I think that should change anything).

The whole freelancer thing is a misnomer and the tax office clued onto this years ago. It was a tax minimisation scheme which has largely been eradicated by IR35 tax laws. In essence, you cannot continue to work on a contracting basis for years with an employer and benefit from beneficial tax rates and other. Contracting jobs are now advertised in the UK as being inside (circa 90%) our outside (circa 10%) IR35. Jobs captured by IR35 are long term contracts where despite being 'paid' a day rate, you are paid ordinarily under PAYE. This is to stop people having rolling 12 month contracts with the same firm for tax reasons as opposed to being a permanent employee. In fact, HMRC are currently in litigation with Lineker as he owes circa £5m in tax as his job is definitely captured under IR35. He just has better lawyers and accountants than Joe Public who has to cop it.

 

[Bradesmaen]

And I pointed out the thing which she got a lot of moaners moaning over was historically correct.

Far more factual than what Lineker hinted at.

It's more akin to Biden turning back boats from Haiti, not Nazi Germany.

It's not historically correct at all.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

You got shares in the BBC mate? Defending them to the hilt.

This has been a problem at the BBC for quite some time tbf

 

[Bradesmaen]

This has been a problem at the BBC for quite some time tbf

The only problem is thin skinned conservatives who think that the BBC should be Russia Today.

 

[SM]

“Everyone recognises this has been a difficult period for staff, contributors, presenters and, most importantly, our audiences. I apologise for this. The potential confusion caused by the grey areas of the BBC’s social media guidance that was introduced in 2020 is recognised. I want to get matters resolved and our sport content back on air.

“Impartiality is important to the BBC. It is also important to the public. The BBC has a commitment to impartiality in its Charter and a commitment to freedom of expression. That is a difficult balancing act to get right where people are subject to different contracts and on air positions, and with different audience and social media profiles.


“The BBC’s social media guidance is designed to help manage these sometimes difficult challenges and I am aware there is a need to ensure that the guidance is up to this task. It should be clear, proportionate, and appropriate.

“Accordingly, we are announcing a review led by an independent expert – reporting to the BBC – on its existing social media guidance, with a particular focus on how it applies to freelancers outside news and current affairs. The BBC and myself are aware that Gary is in favour of such a review.

“Shortly, the BBC will announce who will conduct that review. Whilst this work is undertaken, the BBC’s current social media guidance remains in place."

Sounds like the Independent review will be closing the bullshit 'freelance' loophole.

I don't know how many times it needs to be explained but the BBC Charter demands impartiality. This is not limited to when you are working day to day to the BBC. When you work for a business you represent that business inside and outside of working hours.

Loophole exists so what you're saying is he didn't break any policy. Cool.

 

[SM]

How hard is in to follow the BBC impartiality charter? It's a condition of employment. There are plenty of other networks to work on where this isn't a requirement

Well you just said he didn't break policy so not sure what you mean.

 

[SM]

Her statement was in regards to turning neighbours against neighbours.

So she was 100% historically correct.

What "dangerous" misinformation are you are you talking about?

Probably the bit about the vaccines being dangerous I guess.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

The only problem is thin skinned conservatives who think that the BBC should be Russia Today.

I'd rather the BBC was just privatised. But if they are going to pretend that they are impartial and demand that I pay for it then they should be held to a standard. TBH, I haven't watched MOTD in full since I was a kid. Around the world in 80 days was very good but apart from that I only use IPlayer and that is for my daughters benefit.

 

[SM]

I guess we would have to find a BBC presenter who tweets in support of British government policy. Have you got any examples?

Yes, several, none of whom were punished.

 

[Bostonian]

It's not historically correct at all.

But it is. Are you seriously suggesting that part of the policies of the time weren't to use regular people to inform on their neighbours, turn them in, expose them? Turn on people who were their friends.

Which part of that is not correct?

 

[SM]

But it is. Are you seriously suggesting that part of the policies of the time weren't to use regular people to inform on their neighbours, turn them in, expose them? Turn on people who were their friends.

Which part of that is not correct?

Please stop. It was a terrible comparison and you're only making yourself look more idiotic.

Ignoring absolutely everything else, she worked for a private company that can have its own standards.

 

[Bradesmaen]

I'd rather the BBC was just privatised. But if they are going to pretend that they are impartial and demand that I pay for it then they should be held to a standard. TBH, I haven't watched MOTD in full since I was a kid. Around the world in 80 days was very good but apart from that I only use IPlayer and that is for my daughters benefit.

Because privatisation provides a quality news service...

 

[Bradesmaen]

But it is. Are you seriously suggesting that part of the policies of the time weren't to use regular people to inform on their neighbours, turn them in, expose them? Turn on people who were their friends.

Which part of that is not correct?

So disliking others for differing political views is the same as wanting to rid the world of a religious people?

 

[Bostonian]

Please stop. It was a terrible comparison and you're only making yourself look more idiotic.

Ignoring absolutely everything else, she worked for a private company that can have its own standards.

Oh bullshit. You just hate hypocrisy being pointed out.

Without a doubt the same kind of clowns who got all hot under the collar about what she tweeted will be the among the same clowns now jumping to Lineker's defence.

When people post nonsense like below and try to paint a picture where what is going on with Lineker doesn't come from the other side as well then it's hard to take it serious. It's all tit for tat.

This has been going on for far too long in all countries, conservatives are thin skinned fascists.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Because privatisation provides a quality news service...

Never said it does. People who watch the news tend to look for media that tells them what they want to hear anyway. Whether that is Fox, CNN or whatever.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Never said it does. People who watch the news tend to look for media that tells them what they want to hear anyway. Whether that is Fox, CNN or whatever.

That's America. Land of the stupid

 

[Bojan KantKick]

That's America. Land of the stupid

There are equivalents in the UK and Australia.

 

[Bostonian]

So disliking others for differing political views is the same as wanting to rid the world of a religious people?

You literally called people who have a different political view on immigration fascists.

I don't think Lineker should have anything happen to him. I mean trying to link an Indian and his Jewish deputy to being akin to Nazis is moronic but let him say it if he wants. There are plenty more modern examples he could have used, like Obama and Biden.

You probably should read up a few history books though. They weren't going after a religion, they were going after an ethnicity, even Christian Jews shared the same fate back then.