- This topic has 90 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by
.
- Posts
First thought of posting earlier this week when a certain well known and very well paid pundit once again decided the ‘great unwashed’ of the UK public could benefit from his wisdom concerning the mass illegal immigration across the channel.
Living a richly endowed & pampered lifestyle unaffected in the main by the problem,except perhaps when needing a cheap gardener,Gary Lineker has once again chosen to show in my opinion how out of touch he’s with the reality of everyday working people.Just like the Labour party,traditionally in favour of mass immigration,he’s totally unforgiving for ordinary people to voice concerns on how it affects their lives and a Government trying to come up with a way of stopping the channel crossings.
I originally dropped the idea but after catching up on the weather witnessed one of the BBC’s endless self promotion series of clips.One of them featured GL who with a straight face says “if I have 1% doubt about a twit,sorry,tweet I don’t sent it” changed my mind.
The staggering salary he & his football pals are paid for appearing on MOTD could he halved easily by employing lesser known people and actually showing more of the matches although this may be restricted by terms of contract on exactly what may be shown.
I for one wouldn’t miss him!
Your favourite celebrity virtue signaller?You said it perfectly Blackcountry. The chap is so out of touch, and though I don’t mind immigrants coming across here to try and better their lives, the way he so nonchalantly dismisses the difficulties these issues present to working class people just reeks of a self-righteous, smug tw@.
OK, let’s break this down.
‘a certain well known and very well paid pundit once again decided the ‘great unwashed’ of the UK public could benefit from his wisdom concerning the mass illegal immigration across the channel.’
Yes, it’s called freedom of speech. He didn’t force you or anyone else read it.
‘Living a richly endowed & pampered lifestyle unaffected in the main by the problem,except perhaps when needing a cheap gardener,’
He has housed at least two refugees, probably two more than you have and certainly two more than I have.
‘Gary Lineker has once again chosen to show in my opinion how out of touch he’s with the reality of everyday working people’
Many ‘everyday working people’ agree with him.
‘Just like the Labour party,traditionally in favour of mass immigration’
Where have he or Labour said they are in favour of mass immigration?
‘a Government trying to come up with a way of stopping the channel crossings.’
They’ve had 13 years and the methods they are currently proposing are illegal. They must know this so the only conclusion is that they don’t want to stop it. What they want is it to be blocked so their dwindling band of supporters can froth at the mouth about Labour, ‘lefty lawyers’, the ECHR and whoever else they want to blame this week for their problems. Clearly it’s working to some extent.
Lineker appears on the BBC as its highest paid presenter. There is some confusion over whether or not he is actually employed by the corporation, which looks suspiciously like a tax dodge (he is subject to an ongoing investigation by HMRC).
Irrespective of that, Lineker has been reminded on several occasions that in his position in a publicly funded role he should not be using social media for political commentary. He gives the distinct impression he is not concerned by these warnings and thinks he is above the rules that are in place for everyone else. Several BBC journalists and presenters have directly put it to him that they would be on a disciplinary charge if they had posted the same messages.
I have no problem with Lineker holding the views he does, even though his Hitler analogy this week was silly and immature (even Emily Thornberry has criticised it). But if Lineker wants to be a political activist, he needs to give up his BBC role just like other people have done before him. And it is not as if he does anything vital. I am sure the BBC could find a replacement host for MOTD quite easily.
As for the wider political issues: there is no doubt immigration is a serious issue and the whole political class (Labour and Conservative) are finally waking up about it. Hence the Conservatives desperate move this week to Look Like We Are Doing Sonething About It (when in reality nothing will change).
Lineker does not need the BBC, I would not be surprised if he could command a higher salary elsewhere. Does the BBC need him? They must think so.
Now, can anyone find me an article from the media who are squealing about Lineker where they demand the removal (or should that be cancellation) of Andrew Neil who was one of their main political journalists whist simultaneously at the definitely not left wing Spectator? Yes, he was not afraid to be tough with right wing politicians but Lineker is not partisan on air either.
Alan Sugar is another who is no stranger to Twitter controversy and is also very prominent on the BBC (again impartial on air). I have not heard much call for him to step down either.
The issue with Neil was relevant when he was on the BBC. As far as I am aware he is not any more.
I am not sure about Sugar. Is he paid directly by the BBC or a third party?
But this is whataboutery. It is clear that Lineker is causing discontent with some BBC employees who believe they are being held to a different standard.
It is not a good idea for someone to be earning far more money than the Chief Executive. The DG should be the highest paid person in the corporation. If Lineker and other well paid “stars” do not like it, they can go off to the commercial sector to see if it will pay them what they believe they are worth.
The alternative is the anachronism of the BBC licence fee is abolished and the corporation becomes a subscription service. Then its employees can say what they like, free of the burden of public funding. If the BBC is so vital to public life, everyone will be rushing to take out a subscription, won’t they?
Neil simply highlights the hypocrisy of those howling in the media. If Lineker isn’t allowed to air his views in public whilst at the BBC then why didn’t they have a problem with Neil? I doubt the guidelines have changed much so either both can or neither of them. I chose my words carefully with Sugar, he’s featured prominently on the BBC for over a decade, I don’t know if the BBC pays him or his company but you can’t buy the sort of prime time exposure he has on the BBC.
I am not particularly in favour of the licence fee but there will never be a direct comparison if it’s abolished because the BBC will not be able to provide the same service for the same cost. I am also not forced to pay for it. I am forced to fund commercial broadcasters because it would be very difficult to avoid buying any products that are advertised using the revenue generated (in very small part) by my business.
Anyway, we’ve been here before. What we should be discussing is the government’s plan to break international laws and conventions, not the opinion of some bloke on the BBC.
Meanwhile, the DG of the BBC helped Johnson acquire an 800k loan….. The worst living standards crisis since records began, and a Prime Minister 20 points behind is shouting “Look! Boats!”
It’s utterly impractical, and will be utterly ineffective, but they’ve identified it as a way of acting tough and throwing red meat to their base.“even Emily Thornberry has criticised it”
England forward turns out to be more left wing than Starmer’s Labour – and I’m not even talking about Marcus Rashford – who had THAT on their bingo card?
I don’t mind if the BBC suspend Lineker – so long as Clare Balding joins him.
The odds of me watching one second of Wimbledon 2023 lengthened from 100 to 1000 and no takers today.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Lineker has only said something that I’ve been saying for a long time. My daughter used to teach that period of history and she’s been saying the same. It’s the news media that threw in the word Nazi. He merely pointed out that the government use ( and have been doing so for ages) the sort of rhetoric that was being use in post Weimar Republic/pre WWII Germany. I’m far more appalled by *Bravermans speech in which she said she dreamed of sending people to Rwanda.
*Braverman whose family were migrants who were welcomed by this country. As were Patels and Sunaks. You’d think they’d have a bit of compassion because of it….
Oh and, if we’d stayed in the EU we would legally be able to return people to the first EU country they entered I believe. Pity Braverman supported brexit isn’t it. Especially as she benefited by the Erasmus scheme that is no longer available to students thanks to brexit.I seem to have stirred up a bit of a hornets nest,so allow me to address points raised.
First as I’ve pointed out previously I’ve no trouble with freedom of speech as long as it’s open and honest … more on this later.
I’m aware he did take in ‘refugees’ but whether this has been an ongoing thing there’s been no other claim,so a one off stunt as self promotion?
Claiming many working people agree with him is debatable …try asking these same people how they feel about an influx of refugees stretching the local services beyond what they are capable of delivering.
GL never seems to have any problem with an endless stream of illegal immigrants crossing the channel … just point me to any Labour policy document which says they are in favour of controlling mass immigration or putting any curbs on it?
Finally would you care to point ANY legislation which has been more abused than the so called ‘human rights act’?
Also I believe according to law anyone wishing to claim asylum must do so in the first safe country they enter,now to my knowledge nobody can get to the UK mainland without passing through at least one safe country.
Former immigrants and there’s quite a lot in Birmingham and surrounding areas are abused for voicing the opinion that an uncontrolled influx not only overwhelms local services but destroys the social fabric of society however ‘being on the right side of history’ as the woke virtue signallers say is the only thing that matters regardless.Decide for yourself how history will judge the woke dogma ….George Orwell famously observed that the essential first step to undermining truth is to tamper with language.
I’ve ALWAYS advocated free speech and firmly believe leaving the insidious grasp of Brussels a good thing despite what the remoaners/rejoiners or as I now think of them TRUMPERS.
TRUMPER …… someone who denies/refuses to accept the decision of a democratic vote because they disagree with the result.
good luck to all(in the interest of harmony this posting has been edited)
“an influx of refugees stretching the local services beyond what they are capable of delivering”
Ah yes, this old cliché.
Refugees are not the reason why public services are struggling. Years of chronic underfunding by the Conservatives is.
We have no more control now than before, in fact we have less.
I think the plan is to make the country so bad that nobody will want to come here.
This country is slowly marching towards Fascism with our hard fought rights being removed bit by bit.
Take a look at the pre-war history of Spain, Germany and Italy.
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysBlackcountry Kid. That’s a vile comment to make about Clare Balding. She’s excellent at presenting tv programmes and can pretty much turn her hand to anything. We used to chat to her when she used to go to Uttoxeter with the BBC and I had a lovely reply from her when I wrote to her when One Man died. Her autobiography is a great read. Not only is she talented but she’s a nice person too. I’m disgusted by your comment about her to be honest.
I would not put myself in the Clare Balding fan club but I agree with Moehat. That was not a nice thing to say, BKC.
Now David Attenborough being censored; obs he made the mistake of not facilitating a big loan for Johnson.
BBC refuses to broadcast David Attenborough episode over threat of “rightwing backlash”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.