Gary Lineker

[Boss Hogg]

Time for him to go. Not that bright and can’t keep his mouth shut. Aside from all this he’s getting tiresome on MOTD and I’m sure there are many able presenters for half the salary.

[Lancasterclaret]

Time for him to go. Not that bright and can’t keep his mouth shut. Aside from all this he’s getting tiresome on MOTD and I’m sure there are many able presenters for half the salary.

Alex Scott would be a great replacement

[Falcon]

Bet she doesn't vote Tory

[Lancasterclaret]

Bet she doesn't vote Tory

It doesn't matter

She'd be great at it and just think of the meltdown

[agreenwood]

I don’t mind BBC staff/presenters having public opinions, but if there’s a genuine need to put a stop to it, let’s make sure it’s across the board. Let’s also make sure it extends beyond just words and encompasses actions that indicate very clear partial leanings. Afterall, I’d rather people were politically transparent, than have people working behind the scenes to influence content.

[Nori1958]

No one is illegal until they have been processed.

After that, 80% will prove (from current statistics) to be legitimate refugees.

The Government is unable to repatriate the other 20%, so all pointless. Just a political stunt....the new Brexshit to try and galvanise some sort of tory vote at an election they are currently likely to be decimated. Hate counts.

Apart from the bit about claiming asylum in the first safe country you enter after fleeing, but I agree its probably unworkable

[CrosspoolClarets]

Brilliant trolling from Lancaster.

I predict Gary will go, and it will be Scott. Ticks all the necessary boxes for the Beeb’s HR dept. Hard to see them resisting it.

[BennyD]

It does seem a bit contradictory/hypocritical from Lineker. He’s calling out that these refugees should be allowed in by the boat load, but then sends in an array of Lawyers to try and avoid paying the tax that pays for their stay. What he’s saying is, let them come in, but let someone else pay for them. At best, he’s a mediocre presenter earning a big wage talking about football, and he has no experience whatsoever at being a political commentator, so it’d be best if he stuck to talking nonsense on a Saturday night.

[1882Clarets1882]

So why not start a thread about say Jake Humphrey who came out and said very similar to Lineker on Twitter.

FYI I am not your mate.

Because, as far as Im aware , Humphrey isn't currently attempting to avoid a £ 5million tax bill, and therefore couldn't be suspected of using his comments in a clever manoeuvre to show a lack of any disciplinary procedure by the BBC to get him off the hook. Unlike Lineker. That's why.

You could always have just ignored the thread . Nobody's forced you to comment. Just saying.

[Rowls]

Give some examples because I think that’s rubbish (other than comedy but that’s the nature of the beast, it’s the people in power that get it in the neck most, that’s been the case forever).

Here's an example from the Drama department.

The head writer of one of the BBC's flagship programmes, Dr Who. He is (IMHO) by far the most talented writer of his generation. He is a generational talent and I don't think it's hyperbolic to put him in the same category as Dickens or Shakespeare. I cannot speak highly enough of the man's writing ability. The man is absurdly talented.

But let's have a look what he chose to say in public recently:

He called Conservatives, "murderers, b**tards, abusers, and liars". He did so at a public awards ceremony he knew these remarks would make headlines.

What did he have to say about the trans debate? He labelled gender critical thinkers as "killers": "To cut the T is to kill," were his words. Maybe there's additional nuance to his opinions. He's an experienced guy and it's his job to pick words carefully so there's little doubt he meant what he said.

Does any of this inhibit his ability to write Dr Who? No. Not in the slightest. He writes brilliant drama.

But given the ferocity of his opinions should the BBC be -at very least- vetting his input on Dr Who to ensure it is not being used as a vehicle to promote his extremist party political opinions?

[Spijed]

It does seem a bit contradictory/hypocritical from Lineker. He’s calling out that these refugees should be allowed in by the boat load, but then sends in an array of Lawyers to try and avoid paying the tax that pays for their stay. What he’s saying is, let them come in, but let someone else pay for them. At best, he’s a mediocre presenter earning a big wage talking about football, and he has no experience whatsoever at being a political commentator, so it’d be best if he stuck to talking nonsense on a Saturday night.

And so are all those complaining about his comments, yet advocate free speech!

[Lancasterclaret]

Brilliant trolling from Lancaster.

I predict Gary will go, and it will be Scott. Ticks all the necessary boxes for the Beeb’s HR dept. Hard to see them resisting it.

Ticks all the boxes on ability as well

Course, I'm sure you were going to mention that....oh hang on

[Lancasterclaret]

It does seem a bit contradictory/hypocritical from Lineker. He’s calling out that these refugees should be allowed in by the boat load, but then sends in an array of Lawyers to try and avoid paying the tax that pays for their stay. What he’s saying is, let them come in, but let someone else pay for them. At best, he’s a mediocre presenter earning a big wage talking about football, and he has no experience whatsoever at being a political commentator, so it’d be best if he stuck to talking nonsense on a Saturday night.

Tell me you've not actually read what Lineker tweeted without telling me you've not actually read what Lineker tweeted

[1882Clarets1882]

Isn't that something so trivial that you could and maybe should be big enough to just ignore?

Lancaster claret has, like a few on here , an almost fetishistic paranoid fixation with Ringo McCartney. He and his cohorts now reside in my box if trolls for doggedly following me around this message board accusing me of being their weird obsession with the latter. Consequently, blocking them means I no longer have to see their barmy ramblings. Very liberating it is too.

[Rileybobs]

It's strange that those who openly admit to not paying their TV license or watching the BBC have such a strong opinion on this.

[Greenmile]

It's only about illegal refugees....

There is no such thing as an”illegal refugee”.

[bpgburn]

Lancaster claret has, like a few on here , an almost fetishistic paranoid fixation with Ringo McCartney. He and his cohorts now reside in my box if trolls for doggedly following me around this message board accusing me of being their weird obsession with the latter. Consequently, blocking them means I no longer have to see their barmy ramblings. Very liberating it is too.

Maybe you should try to ignore them all as well then. Pointless blocking them then replying to them don't you think?

[martin_p]

Here's an example from the Drama department.

The head writer of one of the BBC's flagship programmes, Dr Who. He is (IMHO) by far the most talented writer of his generation. He is a generational talent and I don't think it's hyperbolic to put him in the same category as Dickens or Shakespeare. I cannot speak highly enough of the man's writing ability. The man is absurdly talented.

But let's have a look what he chose to say in public recently:

He called Conservatives, "murderers, b**tards, abusers, and liars". He did so at a public awards ceremony he knew these remarks would make headlines.

What did he have to say about the trans debate? He labelled gender critical thinkers as "killers": "To cut the T is to kill," were his words. Maybe there's additional nuance to his opinions. He's an experienced guy and it's his job to pick words carefully so there's little doubt he meant what he said.

Does any of this inhibit his ability to write Dr Who? No. Not in the slightest. He writes brilliant drama.

But given the ferocity of his opinions should the BBC be -at very least- vetting his input on Dr Who to ensure it is not being used as a vehicle to promote his extremist party political opinions?

I know you know a lot about Doctor Who, so no doubt you’ll know the nearly 60 year history of the show is littered with political messages. But I asked you to give examples of bias and all you’ve done is give me an example of potential bias that hasn’t manifested itself in all the episode Russell T Davies has already written.

[1882Clarets1882]

Maybe you should try to ignore them all as well then. Pointless blocking them then replying to them don't you think?

I don't reply to them I've no need to, they're blocked. I can't see what they're saying any longer . I replied to you.

[Socrates]

It’s the absolute pits this forum.

It really is. It makes me despair at times.

[Greenmile]

It’s the absolute pits this forum.

It really is. It makes me despair at times.

You’ve spelled “country” wrong

[TheFamilyCat]

I know you know a lot about Doctor Who, so no doubt you’ll know the nearly 60 year history of the show is littered with political messages. But I asked you to give examples of bias and all you’ve done is give me an example of potential bias that hasn’t manifested itself in all the episode Russell T Davies has already written.

He's clearly biased against daleks and cybermen. The bigoted swine.

[Hapag Lloyd]

It’s the absolute pits this forum.

It really is. It makes me despair at times.

Absolutely
The way Lancaster and his coterie are allowed to attack anyone who has a different opinion to themselves is a total disgrace.

[Lancasterclaret]

Its Page 3 and Rowls has already exceeded all my expectations

[Billy Balfour]

download (2).jpg (9.45 KiB) Viewed 789 times

[martin_p]

He's clearly biased against daleks and cybermen. The bigoted swine.

To be fair, they are illegal aliens.

[1882Clarets1882]

Screenshot_20230309-132046_Chrome.jpg (309.23 KiB) Viewed 783 times

That's what I see. Should I wish to see their nonsensical utterances I could, but let's be honest , as a voyeur of this board for a good few years I seen it all before. Just predictable parroting of whatever phrase or blinkered opinions they've learnt while spending time in their echo chambers before rocking up on here. Which for one particular poster seems to be one hell of a lot of his waking hours. No names mentioned.

[Rowls]

I know you know a lot about Doctor Who, so no doubt you’ll know the nearly 60 year history of the show is littered with political messages. But I asked you to give examples of bias and all you’ve done is give me an example of potential bias that hasn’t manifested itself in all the episode Russell T Davies has already written.

Oh martin. You asked for evidence of bias and I gave you evidence of bias. Then you say it "hasn't manifested" itself into Dr Who. Russell T Davies has spoken at length about how he laces his output with politics:

https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads ... itical-act

There is tonnes of this political bias in Dr Who. There should be lots of political bias in it too - but it should be a broadly British bias encompassing the range of public opinion. Not the opinions of a single man who is happy to label one of the most moderate and popular right-of-centre political parties in the world as "murderers, b**tards, liars and abusers" simply because he doesn't agree with them on everything.

RTD is, IMO, more responsible than anybody else in the country for the promotion of gay rights. His TV shows have done more than any body or organisation to further the cause of gay rights. For this alone, he probably deserves a knighthood.

But it's no good supporting him putting his politics into Dr Who when I agree with them and complaining when I don't. There needs should be some kind of check in place.

The BBC is a publicly funded body and as such it needs to have a level of openness and accountability. Where is the openness and accountability when it comes to the writing of Dr Who?

As you say, I know my onions when it comes to Dr Who. There is no accountability that I know of.

[Greenmile]

Absolutely
The way Lancaster and his coterie are allowed to attack anyone who has a different opinion to themselves is a total disgrace.

Yeah. They (we?) should be rounded up and put in the gulags for expressing their (our?) opinions.

[Rowls]

It’s the absolute pits this forum.

It really is. It makes me despair at times.

Which bit don't you like?

The differing opinions?
The insults?
The swearing?
The abuse?

[Rowls]

Its Page 3 and Rowls has already exceeded all my expectations

[gandhisflipflop]

Time for him to go. Not that bright and can’t keep his mouth shut. Aside from all this he’s getting tiresome on MOTD and I’m sure there are many able presenters for half the salary.

Can’t even be arsed getting into the debate about lineker, I have my views on him but happy to keep them to myself. Just quoting this comment to say that the person who I believe would make a fantastic MOTD presenter is James Richardson.

[MrTopTier]

Because, as far as Im aware , Humphrey isn't currently attempting to avoid a £ 5million tax bill, and therefore couldn't be suspected of using his comments in a clever manoeuvre to show a lack of any disciplinary procedure by the BBC to get him off the hook. Unlike Lineker. That's why.

Not sure how you could link Lineker’s comments to getting him off the hook in paying a tax bill though.

[Rileybobs]

I take great satisfaction in the knowledge that Ringo absolutely, 100%, without a shadow of doubt clicks on 'Display this post' every time I make a post.

Hi Ringo.

[Lancasterclaret]

Absolutely
The way Lancaster and his coterie are allowed to attack anyone who has a different opinion to themselves is a total disgrace.

I've been name checked by

- 1882, who used to be Wrongo
- Nori, who used to be grumps
- Hapag Lloyd, who used to be ???


But yeah, I'm the one who is attacking other posters

*epic eye roll*

[Lancasterclaret]

I take great satisfaction in the knowledge that Ringo absolutely, 100%, without a shadow of doubt clicks on 'Display this post' every time I make a post.

Hi Ringo.

It must take him forever, it would be much easier if he didn't have us all blocked......oh hang on

[martin_p]

Oh martin. You asked for evidence of bias and I gave you evidence of bias. Then you say it "hasn't manifested" itself into Dr Who. Russell T Davies has spoken at length about how he laces his output with politics:

https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads ... itical-act

There is tonnes of this political bias in Dr Who. There should be lots of political bias in it too - but it should be a broadly British bias encompassing the range of public opinion. Not the opinions of a single man who is happy to label one of the most moderate and popular right-of-centre political parties in the world as "murderers, b**tards, liars and abusers" simply because he doesn't agree with them on everything.

RTD is, IMO, more responsible than anybody else in the country for the promotion of gay rights. His TV shows have done more than any body or organisation to further the cause of gay rights. For this alone, he probably deserves a knighthood.

But it's no good supporting him putting his politics into Dr Who when I agree with them and complaining when I don't. There needs should be some kind of check in place.

The BBC is a publicly funded body and as such it needs to have a level of openness and accountability. Where is the openness and accountability when it comes to the writing of Dr Who?

As you say, I know my onions when it comes to Dr Who. There is no accountability that I know of.

How do you get ‘bias encompassing the range of public opinion’? Do you want an anti gay rights show to balance things up?

[Lancasterclaret]

Can’t even be arsed getting into the debate about lineker, I have my views on him but happy to keep them to myself. Just quoting this comment to say that the person who I believe would make a fantastic MOTD presenter is James Richardson.

He is another who would be great, but he's doing an great job already on the Totally football show

And it has to be said, he's said very, very, very similar to Lineker about the same topics

[martin_p]

I've been name checked by

- 1882, who used to be Wrongo
- Nori, who used to be grumps
- Hapag Lloyd, who used to be ???


But yeah, I'm the one who is attacking other posters

*epic eye roll*

It was ablueclaret that coined the ‘coterie’ on the old board. Proud to be one of the founder members

[Rowls]

How do you get ‘bias encompassing the range of public opinion’? Do you want an anti gay rights show to balance things up?

No, as I stated, what I want is a system of accountability and openness.

[1882Clarets1882]

Not sure how you could link Lineker’s comments to getting him off the hook in paying a tax bill though.

See my OP.

[martin_p]

No, as I stated, what I want is a system of accountability and openness.

So do you think Russell T Davies surreptitiously snook in his gay rights message in his dramas about gay men or do you think the BBC knew about them and approved?

[MrTopTier]

It was ablueclaret that coined the ‘coterie’ on the old board. Proud to be one of the founder members

Thought it was Hampstead, had forgotten about
ablue.

[Lancasterclaret]

Thought it was Hampstead, had forgotten about
ablue.

I thought they were the same as well?

Honestly, its so much easier just to keep the one username

[gandhisflipflop]

He is another who would be great, but he's doing an great job already on the Totally football show

And it has to be said, he's said very, very, very similar to Lineker about the same topics

Don’t really care about his political leanings (it ain’t worth the stress), I wouldn’t agree with him if it’s similar to Linekers but I’d enjoy his shows. FWIW, I don’t actually think Lineker is a bad presenter at all.

[fatboy47]

If Lineker was speaking loudly about his support for conservative values and opinions I'd agree with him. But I'd still question whether a prominent BBC employee (or contracter, as he is claiming) should be campaigning so prominently for partisan political causes.

You wouldn't Rowls.
Trust me on this one.

[Big Vinny K]

You seem to have missed it but I already answered this question for you Big Vinny K.

Yes you did - apologies Rowls
I’ll ask it another way then.

Why do you think it’s ok for Sally Nugent to express and promote her political views on national TV on the BBC programme she hosts to millions of viewers yet you think it’s not ok for Lineker to express his political views on a media outlet that is not even the BBC ?

[elwaclaret]

The Free trade Reform debate alive and well, it is the same argument. British Government’s since the early 1800’s have been playing both poacher and game keeper. You cannot have ‘Free Trade’ across nations without freedom of movement.

The defence is not “number of” more population density. The benefits we all enjoy like the NHS needs protecting.

While I agree, Britain’s NHS needs protection… it means wages cannot be set by true Free Trade, free market economics. So the government’s need to stop Union bashing and find a solution. If free market economics were at play those in the public sector would be fabulously rich…. That is why they are in the public sector.

Double standards we have accepted as natural are in fact anything but.

[evensteadiereddie]

Lineker is a decent presenter, his upsetting a clapped out Tory party is a bonus.
They've got just the one card left having screwed up just about everything they've touched, a last desperate effort to keep the anti-immigration pot boiling.
He's called them out, fair play.

[Rowls]

So do you think Russell T Davies surreptitiously snook in his gay rights message in his dramas about gay men or do you think the BBC knew about them and approved?

As I've said, I don't know of any level of accountability or openness regarding the writing of Dr Who.

The writers of one episode in the 80s have publicly boasted about how it was a thinly veiled direct attack at Margaret Thatcher, replete with dreadful and thinly veiled caricature of Mrs Thatcher. Nobody checked that, or stopped it going into production.

Fortunately, for cause of impartiality, their episode was so bad that nobody watched it.