This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
BBC (again)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Teddy Eagle  13 Mar 23 8.31am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by kevlee
So considering that Mark Chapman and all the paid pundits walked out in solidarity must mean they are all left wing Marxists as well? I would be interested to hear from the anti Lineker brigade what right wing football pundits they would like to see presenting MOTD. Sol Campbell?
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
 georgenorman  13 Mar 23 8.32am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by kevlee
So considering that Mark Chapman and all the paid pundits walked out in solidarity must mean they are all left wing Marxists as well? I would be interested to hear from the anti Lineker brigade what right wing football pundits they would like to see presenting MOTD. Paolo Di Canio
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 13 Mar 23 8.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by kevlee
I would be interested to hear from the anti Lineker brigade what right wing football pundits they would like to see presenting MOTD. I would like to see Lineker removed and couldn't care less what politics his replacement might support as long as he didn't use his high profile position in the BBC to promote them
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 13 Mar 23 8.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines
Hmmm, if Braverman was the target why not write to her? Unfortunately his ego means he must preach his thoughts to everybody, whether they want it or not. This has just cemented the view that he is a narcissist, and he thinks that his status and wealth means he is above the rest of us. Many well known people express their opinions on Twitter. People can read, or ignore. That's their choice. It would be a restriction of free speech if only the unknown could express themselves. You can ignore Lineker, just as you can ignore anyone on Twitter or here.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 13 Mar 23 8.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
If Lineker is that concerned about immigration or other issues he could have approached the BBC and asked them for a platform to express his views with a right of reply of course for the alternate opinion. Instead he chose to use his celebrity profile to attack government policy, if his contract doesn't prohibit him from doing that then shame on the BBC. Most employees have a "morals" (for want of a better word) clause that prohibits them from doing reputational damage to the organisation they work for.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 13 Mar 23 8.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Media claiming today the BBC will back down which I believe will be a failure of management. This story has moved on from what Lineker meant in his post to who runs the BBC, I expect the answer will be Gary and his football chums. You reap what you sow, more ammunition for the opponents of the licence fee. That's because what Lineker meant by his post is an insignificant side show. The real issue is whether those who work for the BBC, in whichever way, can be contractually restrained from expressing themselves, on issues outside their speciality, in their private time. Lineker has merely brought this to the boil.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| The Dolphin 13 Mar 23 8.57am |
|
|---|---|
|
They can get rid of him without fear of reprisal - after all, he has told the Revenue that he is self employed.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 13 Mar 23 8.57am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by kevlee
So considering that Mark Chapman and all the paid pundits walked out in solidarity must mean they are all left wing Marxists as well? I would be interested to hear from the anti Lineker brigade what right wing football pundits they would like to see presenting MOTD. Jimmy Hill no doubt, if he was still with us.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 13 Mar 23 9.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
They shouldn't forget that there is far more to the BBC than it's sports department, and the far bigger and wider entertainment industry comprises a very large Jewish contingency who will not have been impressed by Lineker's analogy... I fail to see why. It only spoke of the language used being similar. Not the motivations. It was a fair point.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 13 Mar 23 9.03am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
I would like to see Lineker removed and couldn't care less what politics his replacement might support as long as he didn't use his high profile position in the BBC to promote them Freedom of speech for all?
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 13 Mar 23 9.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
If Lineker is that concerned about immigration or other issues he could have approached the BBC and asked them for a platform to express his views with a right of reply of course for the alternate opinion. Instead he chose to use his celebrity profile to attack government policy, if his contract doesn't prohibit him from doing that then shame on the BBC. Most employees have a "morals" (for want of a better word) clause that prohibits them from doing reputational damage to the organisation they work for. Has it done reputational damage? In the eyes of some who believe it's reputation to be damaged already, probably. In the eyes of others, depending on the consequences, it might strengthen its reputation. The ball is still in play.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 13 Mar 23 9.19am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.