Has the BBC become a Tory tool?

The BBC has protected nonces (and their bosses) for decades. This isn't the worst thing they've done is it?
 
Gary has really let them down here, now people might question the BBCs impartiality

Fq4xk4JXwAAeDvi
 
Bill Walker said:
I believe he signed a contract with the BBC as a contractor, the contract had an impartiality clause which he has breached, several times.
I think other senior presenters have voiced their opinion as to why he can do that and presumably they can't.
So unless the BBC acted they could all start with their own particular soapboxes.

Gary Lineker is paid by and is the face of BBC sport. He can't suddenly start condemning the Government when the BBC's doctrine is impartiality. Having a senior figure attacking the Gov is not a viable situation.
Click to expand...
Attacking the government?

Like ‘Swarms’, ‘invasion’, ‘Billions of economic migrants’?

Just spanked half a billion of our money to get less than nothing back. You happy with that?
 
sir baconface said:
You think invoking 1930s Germany is balanced? Seriously?
Click to expand...
The government and the BBC are guilty of hypocrisy. The BBC want staff to be apolitical but Sharp and Gibbs are at the levers of power. From previous journalists who worked there, it sounds as though they are actively interfering in journalists reporting against the government. It is ridiculous that the same government are giving out about snowflakes, woke overly sensitive people and yet Morduant turned a common speech into a weird shit analogy about Lineker.

As for Lineker, his comparison was crude, but he is right to point out that the HS is whipping up dangerous rhetoric against people who have no platform to fight back. This is done purely as they have nothing to offer, no strategy or policies. This is divisive and makes populations cruel. A more appropriate comparison for Suella would have been Enoch Powell and for the policy like something from 1970s BNP.
 

sir baconface said:
If they sign up to earning seven figure sums by observing certain contractual conditions, maybe not.
Click to expand...
1. What difference does the money have?
Because that's how you judge him. It's not enough what he said. So well try the fact that it's HIM that said it. The law is impartial and does not work on this way. But I can see how people expect their feelings to sway every issue these days.
2. Name 'em. Name the contractual conditions. Or you're spraying around deodorant to try and hide the stink of it being about your feelings rather than what's right and wrong.
sir baconface said:
I don’t support the government on this issue but nor do I support faux martyrs playing to their chosen galley. If they call his bluff, that’s OK with me. If he winds it in that’s equally OK.
Click to expand...
As long as he is punished or apologises, you're ok. Because obviously it doesn't matter who he is, you were only giving in to your feelings because you don't like him.

It doesn't matter. It can't matter. The law doesn't, cannot care if you think he's an overpaid fake martyr.

That's why we have the law, because people are fucking soft and spoilt only want things to apply when they feel like it.

Frankly, it's none of your business to decide on what other's say. Because you wouldn't do the job properly, and if it was done the way you wanted it this time, next time, someone could do exactly the same thing against you because they didn't like it, didn't like you.

Because you and other people are the epitome of lack of balance. You can't be trusted. You've lived like that your whole life, but you've learned that people in charge throw you a fucking bone because you rightfully have a vote. And there's a lot of you. And others who don't like your way of reacting consider they have to keep you from tipping the whole thing over. So that's more bones. At some point, round bout Brexit, I guess, people got a lot of bones thrown their way. Now you expect it every time.

No. Any more bones you get will drive people nuts, and they'll eventually work out a way to take power and kick you very hard in the nuts. You should, impolitely, use the opportunity to shut up and learn something. Rather than bark and demand more. Go and read some second and third year history. Then practise the phrase, "I disagree vehemently with what he says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it". Stop acting so spoilt. Become a proper supporter of the great English democracy that raised you and gave you everything.
 
Can we say that the BBC are supporting underfunding for the NHS, ambulance drivers, education for our children, and, and ,and, and still trying to ensure that the Tories should be a contender for another term?
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
Can we say that the BBC are supporting underfunding for the NHS, ambulance drivers, education for our children, and, and ,and, and still trying to ensure that the Tories should be a contender for another term?
Click to expand...
Yes. Because it doesn't trigger people.

Fucking Basil Fawlty's everywhere. He "invoked" the war! Like Basil, the overwhelming sense is of Anxious people. Very easily upset. Imagining things, quite a lot of the time. Clearly they have been spoilt and coddled for too long.

This is an adult country. Stop acting like babies.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
Attacking the government?

Like ‘Swarms’, ‘invasion’, ‘Billions of economic migrants’?

Just spanked half a billion of our money to get less than nothing back. You happy with that?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter what I'm happy with. GL signed a contract. He's breached it.

If he quits the BBC he can say whatever he likes. It's quite simple really.
 
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
✖
  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.