aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
And a horrible little frog faced ****.Yes. And an agitator.
And a horrible little frog faced ****.Yes. And an agitator.
Yes. And a ****.
But not in the Charter.BBC - Impartiality - BBC Trust
Ensuring the impartiality of the BBC is a key priority for the Trust; it is essential to its independence that the BBC retains the public’s trust as an impartial purveyor of news and programming.www.bbc.co.uk
Easily readible section there saying BBC charter requires impartiality
Further guidelines issued on social media use to ensure they keep in line with the charter
It’s clear as day, don’t see how anyone can argue otherwise
Not falling for anything. The Left who have been busy cancelling everyone they don't agree with have had a taste of their own medicine. Piss funny. They're probably calling everyone who doesn't agree with the smug **** a 'gammon'. I'm not reading this thread but I'm guessing it's been used already.You're falling for the left vs right culture war which is what this Government wants.
If you believe that 'the left' is in favour of a cancel culture then I'd question what you've been reading.
They are also ridiculously pro-Royal.But not in the Charter.
The guidelines also say they're not impartial when it comes to some things. "Fundamental democratic principles include the right to vote, freedom of expression and the rule of law."
Yes, I used it you fucking gammon! :-)Not falling for anything. The Left who have been busy cancelling everyone they don't agree with have had a taste of their own medicine. Piss funny. They're probably calling everyone who doesn't agree with the smug **** a 'gammon'. I'm not reading this thread but I'm guessing it's been used already.
Yes, I used it you fucking gammon! :-)
Good lord ........I want to know the logic behind this.
So you're against cancel culture when it involves actual sexual misconduct or racism, but it's funny when the person calling out racist rhetoric is being censored?
What're the mental gymnastics involved to think you're on the righ side of this?
The first brick? Good heavens no. They've been laying the bricks for years. The right to protest, voter suppression, removing parliamentary scrutiny and giving power to ministers, removing rights of judicial challenge - the foundations are well laid.I think this whole situation has been blown out of all propotion by the BBC.
For me as an individual, regardless of Gary Lineker, my opinions and the way i lead my life is not swayed, influenced or mobilised by what someone on social media has to say.
Yes, i can read it, take it on board, respect an opinion, and maybe enhance my way of thinking perhaps?
The thing that annoys me, is that Britain lost so many lives in WWII, because they fought for freedom.
Is this potentially the first brick in a gigantic wall of removing freedom, and the right to an opinion?
I sincerely hope not.
Sadly the tories will love this. They want to drag the BBC down or make it right leaning. Ideally both. They and their plants on the board will be delighted with this and will hold the line.Thinking about it, I don't want this argument to be put back in its box with some mealy mouthed words on both sides to restore an unsteady peace.
The issues of the BBCs relationship with government and levels of interference in our national broadcaster have been a open sore for far too long now and it is debilitating parts of the BBC. The situation needs a full and frank airing and an outcome that allows the BBC to continue with whatever the majority in the nation want it's mission to be.
Personally I hope that those who would wish to see it cowed, used as a culture war tool, or dismantled and defunded are on the losing side of this argument.
Not falling for anything. The Left who have been busy cancelling everyone they don't agree with have had a taste of their own medicine. Piss funny. They're probably calling everyone who doesn't agree with the smug **** a 'gammon'. I'm not reading this thread but I'm guessing it's been used already.
Taking the knee with one hand across the mouth...The players will be taking the ear before ko
most of em work for other broadcasters so they're not really putting jobs on the line, just one of they're many gigs, it's not like they'll all be down the food bank is itThis.
Shame so many Twitter trolls will casually slag off every pundit and presenter but they’ve really stood up to the plate principally on this one and are putting their jobs on the line
Sadly the tories will love this. They want to drag the BBC down or make it right leaning. Ideally both. They and their plants on the board will be delighted with this and will hold the line.
The BBC policies aren’t rigid though, they had no reason to involve themselves.Regardless of what you think of Lineker's commentary...
I agree with the humanitarian posts he recently made on Twitter - however controversial.
Lineker was put into a very tough spot - speak up against abhorrent government policy as a citizen - in direct contradiction to the BBC's policy - or remain silent.
For what it's worth - I think that Lineker made the right decision - 100%.
And also for what it's worth - I think that the BBC was put in an extremely hard situation - due to its rigid policies.
Look - world politics are extremely divisive. Is it realistic that any organization demands - as a condition of employment - that you keep silent on all political matters - period! - I don't think that this is reasonable.
As an alternative - suppose the BBC had the policy in place that any political post made by one of its employees be accompanied by the following or similar some-such?:
"The following post is my own and reflects my personal opinion and has nothing whatsoever to do with the stance and opinion of my employer, the BBC."