We used to mock countries like that. Now it’s on our doorstepOriginally Posted by Swiss Peter
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
We used to mock countries like that. Now it’s on our doorstep
I was going to include that in my post aswell. The BBCs contract is with Linekers company from which he get his money. HMRC are claiming he should be treated as an employee.
Given he's got a director in his ear, hard to argue against direction of control. Any substitution clause would be a joke too.
A football presenter tweeting about cruelty towards asylum seekers is not the same as a news programme portraying a politician who genuinely wanted to make things better as a communist.
The company being registered in one of Cayman/Panama/Jersey at a guess. Same arrangement with Fiona Bruce (for example) Never worked (directly) for the BBC.
Ignore this, meant to post it in the thread on the alternative forum.
he has his walker crisps millions to fall back on.
The BBC I think does a pretty good job on the whole of being middle ground and impartial
I thought corbyn was an idiot but he got a battering
It's good that Lineker has spoken out and good that the Tories are on the back foot again
I am sure he won't mind being sacrificed at the altar and he can afford it
It's a uk registered partnership he set up with his ex wife.
HMRC tried a similar claim against Lorraine Kelly. ITV contracted her company to present the Lorraine programme. Her argument was that when presenting the programme she wasn't Lorraine Kelly the person, but Lorraine Kelly the TV character. Despite LK the character being the Director of LK the company, presenting a programme called Lorraine, she won.
This is purely to make more dollar ?
Neither Wright or Shearer appearing tomorrow now.
I would fire Lineker just to make this happen permanently.
I like lineker, but this is a price worth paying
oops not true , they will however air the episode showing the destruction invasive species have on the indigenous flora and fauna.
Weird how the BBC didn't care when Linekar said 'bin Coybyn'.
Or how about the time they photoshopped Corbyn in a Russian hat (despite the person he was running against actually taking donations from Russia).
Or how about Laura Kuenssberg's blatant bias towards our current government.
Rumour has it that Gary Neville will replace him
He shouldn't have said it and he shouldn't have been sacked. The BBC is in a difficult position in terms of impartiality I suppose.
More like it's shit scared of losing its funding and has decided to toe the line. I'm sure it won't bother Lineker, he can always find alternative employment.
So which Tory lackey will be presenting MOTD?
Penny Mordaunt is the natural candidate to present Match of the Day surely?
The biggest issue here has to be control of the media, surely? We can all have differences of opinion on a wide range of issues, and it's a shame this thread has been derailed into yet another boring immigration slanging match.
Let's go back to the last year of the last Labour government. In opposition the Tories announced an intention to clip the wings of the BBC. Overnight, Rupert Murdoch's media empire unanimously announced its support for the Conservatives. Murdoch has long been critical of the supposed power the BBC holds. Since then, the BBC has been very reluctant to go against the Conservative party for fear of reprisals.
The BBC regularly gets opposing views on the same subject to make sure its reporting is "balanced", particularly when an item is critical of the government, yet that doesn't always work. If 100 experts agree on one thing and 1 biased individual doesn't, creating a host of lies in the process, that's not presenting the situation accurately. There have been reports of Conservative plants in the audience at Question Time. Political editors are generally Conservatives.
Any commercial broadcaster can adopt any angle it likes, so Sky, GB News etc can say what it wants (in the case of GB Bollocks it doesn't even have to be true). Channel 4 is a public service broadcaster, so again needs to be impartial. It has stood up to the Tory government more than any other broadcaster and asked tough questions of them. The government's response has been to suggest selling Channel 4 and removing its public service remit.
I don't care what side of the political spectrum someone aligns with, our public service broadcasters should be freely able to criticise and ask difficult questions of all of our politicians, political decision making and discussions etc. Any party threatening these broadcasters in order to get them to "back off" is effectively controlling our unbiased media in the country in favour of biased media that promotes them.
There has been talk of plants of Labour activists in the Question Time audience as well Eric.
And as for the BBC political editors what about John Simpson John Cole and Andrew Marr?
Can you see any of them voting Conservative?
And I recognize that Nick Robinson was a Conservative when he was younger.
I don't think Laura Kuensberg or Chris Mason have ever expressed a view
Laura Kuensberg was the mouthpiece for the Tories and as I mentioned above was very close to the Tory leadership... that will come out in a book one day. She is vile... and jumps to the defence of the government (particularly Cummings and Johnson).
Well impartiality is built into the BBC. Look what happens when they briefly did a Corbyn montage several years ago on Newsnight - people lost their shit and still mention it years later. Well, that's why the BBC needs to be impartial.
Now, I don't think he should have been sacked, but that's clearly how the BBC have interpreted it.
Hopefully the perpetually offended will spend less time calling for everyone to be sacked all the time in future..now that would be good
A football presenter tweeting about cruelty towards asylum seekers is not the same as a news programme portraying a politician who genuinely wanted to make things better as a communist.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote