The BBC | Tim Davie resigns as Director General over Trump documentary edit (p 187)

bluethrunthru said:
yes - adhere to the requirements in International Law that we signed up to
Click to expand...
Very helpful. Do you think all those people who come over on the boats qualify to seek asylum? I am not looking for an argument, just trying to understand how we should best deal with this particular issue which seems to be so divisive. One comment I heard recently was that instead of these people paying smugglers £5k (not sure if that figure is correct) why don't they just get on a flight which is far cheaper and start from there. Now it maybe that these people don't have a passport and can't obtain one, I have no idea. The real issue potentially is trying to crack the criminals who appear to making fortunes from some very vulnerable people.
 
Eds said:
Very helpful. Do you think all those people who come over on the boats qualify to seek asylum? I am not looking for an argument, just trying to understand how we should best deal with this particular issue which seems to be so divisive. One comment I heard recently was that instead of these people paying smugglers £5k (not sure if that figure is correct) why don't they just get on a flight which is far cheaper and start from there. Now it maybe that these people don't have a passport and can't obtain one, I have no idea. The real issue potentially is trying to crack the criminals who appear to making fortunes from some very vulnerable people.
Click to expand...

Yes I do. Because that is what we are obliged to do under International Law.

Where its all a mess is the Govt have delayed the asylum system making decisions because they needed a confected issue to annoy their useful idiot fringe and by pulling out of the EU and leaving the Belfast Agreement whilst at the same time failing to negotiate returns agreements with other countries means anyone who's claim fails has to remain here anyway.
 
Kompany Car said:
Depends what its about, if I voiced an opinion on the government of a country and my company had lucrative contracts with them, there's a good chance I would be told to take a walk.

I think in this case he's been stupid with his wording, he could have said he disagrees with the policy without playing to the audience by adding the whole Nazi analogy.
Click to expand...
Removing the analogy kneecaps the point. The point IS that that’s how it started. You can’t make that point without pointing it out.

Learn from history!!!!
 
Rory Bluelow said:
I think Lineker is perfectly entitled to express his opinions - whatever they are - and I‘m hugely against ”cancellation” of anyone or groupthink by coercion. But the BBC has to walk a tightrope of impartiality (apart from football !) because of its unique cultural position. Gary knew what he doing and that he was putting the BBC in an impossible position.
It matters not that he was “freelance”, if I employed an expensive leading consultant on a project who was then briefing against or publicly criticising it he’d be off the job in an instant. Words have consequences.
By Invoking Nazi Germany in his original statement and then gleefully doubling down in the following days, left the BBC little choice in the matter: it was a direct challenge - him basically squaring up to them.
I think there’s no way back for him but he’s a very wealthy man so no problem, but I’m sure the BBC will find a way over the coming week to move forward with putting shit punditry back on our screens.
Click to expand...
Their news presenters share vitriolic opinions on social media all the time. He isn’t bound by impartiality as a sports presenter, it already stated that in guidelines before the recent investigation into guidelines, yet the way they implement them is backwards
 
Rory Bluelow said:
I think Lineker is perfectly entitled to express his opinions - whatever they are - and I‘m hugely against ”cancellation” of anyone or groupthink by coercion. But the BBC has to walk a tightrope of impartiality (apart from football !) because of its unique cultural position. Gary knew what he doing and that he was putting the BBC in an impossible position.
It matters not that he was “freelance”, if I employed an expensive leading consultant on a project who was then briefing against or publicly criticising it he’d be off the job in an instant. Words have consequences.
By Invoking Nazi Germany in his original statement and then gleefully doubling down in the following days, left the BBC little choice in the matter: it was a direct challenge - him basically squaring up to them.
I think there’s no way back for him but he’s a very wealthy man so no problem, but I’m sure the BBC will find a way over the coming week to move forward with putting shit punditry back on our screens.
Click to expand...
You seem to be suggesting that he was talking about his employer, the BBC, rather than talking about the government, which is supposed to be at arms length from the BBC.
 
cheekybids said:
He didn’t need to bring 1930s Germany into it. The Nazis did the most evil things known & if he can’t get his point over better then thats why he’s been pulled. In my opinion he’s right to call out dehumanisation of migrants but ffs Nazis really.
Click to expand...
How did it start, cheekybids? With dehumanising language and policies, such as we are seeing today. We have to be wary at all times not to follow down the same path.
 
richardtheref said:
Under the contract with between the BBC & the PL, the BBC is only allowed to show a maximum of 12 minutes highlights from each game
Click to expand...
12 from each game adds up to more than 20 mins
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top