Has the BBC become a Tory tool?

I’m not outraged at all. You can have an argument and make your point without being outraged.

I’m simply pointing out that if someone is referencing 1930s Germany, it’s clear what the reference relates to. Why else would Lineker make that particular reference in the first place?

Also, the bit about tory blue etc is irrelevant, and nothing to do with Lineker making a comment that would inevitably cause offence. If someone like Jeremy Clarkson was making the comment I would also find it inappropriate and unnecessary.
He said it because the language the tories, particularly braveman are using is the same
 
If you read the full guidance, it’s pretty vague about which elements of the policy apply and who to.

The other issue is it’s not consistently applied either.
I’ve read the full guidance and highlighted the bit about those with high profiles as only an idiot wouldn’t work out that Lineker fits that category.
 
Talking of 1930s Germany....

When Manchester City played in Berlin and foiled the Nazi propaganda machine

English champions went to Germany in 1937 on a hot streak to take on Hitler’s ‘political soldiers’ and came back with heads held high – but not their arms

pg-58-man-city-berlin-getty.jpg

City’s Peter Doherty said the players decided not to do a Nazi salute, but only stand to attention

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...the-nazi-propaganda-machine-a6672906.html?amp
 
I thought the presenters were contractually obliged to present and do what they get paid for? So if they don’t fulfil their contracts then cancel them. All of them. Immediately. Then bring in some new ‘talent’ and some new blood on acceptable salaries. The viewing figures of MOTD would not change one iota either up or down if Lineaker and his cronies didn’t present it and someone else did. People tune in to watch the game and see the goals. Not to watch Shearer to repeat his bog standard ‘analysis’ every week. The sooner the BBC and the presenters realise this the better for all concerned.
None of them are salaried, unlike the commentators who are BBC staffers.
 
Last edited:
I’ve read the full guidance and highlighted the bit about those with high profiles as only an idiot wouldn’t work out that Lineker fits that category.

That same guidance classes someone like Lineker (I.e. a sports presenter commenting on political issues) as low risk though. I’d argue only an idiot (or someone with deliberate motivations) would actually think Lineker views, posted on a highly active personal account, are indicative of the BBC’s position on the matter - that was also the BBCs position both with this initially, previously with Lineker and also with others.
 
Last edited:
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.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.