alanb Posted March 12, 2023 Report Share Posted March 12, 2023 Back on topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum Gilhooley Posted March 12, 2023 Report Share Posted March 12, 2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted March 12, 2023 Report Share Posted March 12, 2023 6 minutes ago, Warrior Saint said: Lineker was happy to go to Quatar and get paid handsomely along with the others, where was his opinion on human rights? Two faced bawbags.. Don't know what he said about Quatar. However, here's what he said about Qatar. Gary Lineker addresses Qatar human rights issues in passionate World Cup opening speech - Leicestershire Live (leicestermercury.co.uk) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted March 12, 2023 Report Share Posted March 12, 2023 1 hour ago, Warrior Saint said: Lineker was happy to go to Quatar and get paid handsomely along with the others, where was his opinion on human rights? Two faced bawbags.. Ouch.... Bet you feel a right tool now "Where was his opinion on human rights"? Not hard to find... ""Homosexuality is illegal here. Women's rights and freedom of expression are in the spotlight. Also the decision six years ago to switch the World Cup from summer to winter. "Against that backdrop there is a tournament to be played, one that will be watched and enjoyed around the world. "Stick to football, say FIFA, well we will, for a couple of minutes, at least." Ahead of the tournament the former England striker vowed to highlight the issues in the coverage of the tournament, something which he did in his opening monologue." He could have stayed away... Said nothing, and the human rights issues would have gone unchallenged. He chose to go and, despite instructions otherwise, speak out. That answer your rather ridiculous question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guinness Posted March 12, 2023 Report Share Posted March 12, 2023 Was slightly surprised at how few people watch MOTD. Just over 2 million weekly. Thought it would have been higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W6er Posted March 13, 2023 Report Share Posted March 13, 2023 Time to get rid of the licence fee. I am all for freedom of speech, as I consider myself a libertarian. However, if I'm being forced to pay for the BBC through a licence fee which enables them to furnish Lineker with a salary of £1.35 million, then I expect political impartiality. Were he to work for a private company, then like Matt Le Tissier, he would have to respect that his actions would reflect on that company. His profile is augmented by the fact he presents MOTD, and as BBC employee his opinions reflect on his employer. The fact is were he employed by a private company, folk could boycott his employer in protest, but not paying one's licence fee can result in a fine of £1,000. Making the BBC pay-per-view, so that those who want to watch the BBC's programmes pay for them will end this matter - as those outraged by his comments could simply unsubscribe in protest. That way Lineker can say what he likes and his employer will feel the consequences, if any. Whilst it is publicly funded, and folk are being literally forced to pay for it through a compulsory licence fee, then I expect political neutrality and high standards of behaviour from their employees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livinginthepast Posted March 13, 2023 Report Share Posted March 13, 2023 Best MOD in ages on Saturday. It was so short I didnt even have time to fall asleep. Has there ever been a more overrated giggling Prima Donna than Lineker, Shearer or Wright. Yes there is. Micah Richards By emboldening crisp peddler Lineker and his primary school opinions over Qatar, the BBC have created a monster. Not a Monster Munch. I sincerely hope that Saints legend Steven Thomson gets the gig, with subtitles in case he gets mixed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W6er Posted March 13, 2023 Report Share Posted March 13, 2023 I think it's wrong to force people to pay for the BBC, if they do not watch it. I barely watch TV, and the only BBC programme I watch is Sportscene. https://www.defundbbc.uk/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted March 13, 2023 Report Share Posted March 13, 2023 21 minutes ago, W6er said: I think it's wrong to force people to pay for the BBC, if they do not watch it. I barely watch TV, and the only BBC programme I watch is Sportscene. https://www.defundbbc.uk/ Ok, Rupert… …we understand that you want all your input to be provided by commercial channels which are all absolutely neutral politically and unbiased by any commercial incentives, whatsoever. I guess you never listen to the radio, either… And, as for any social or community cohesion, that can also go out the window. im glad you’ve thought that through and wish to share it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted March 13, 2023 Report Share Posted March 13, 2023 10 hours ago, Warrior Saint said: How clever you are, back in your bigoted wee box now! Cheers oaf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W6er Posted March 13, 2023 Report Share Posted March 13, 2023 2 hours ago, antrin said: Ok, Rupert… …we understand that you want all your input to be provided by commercial channels which are all absolutely neutral politically and unbiased by any commercial incentives, whatsoever. I guess you never listen to the radio, either… And, as for any social or community cohesion, that can also go out the window. im glad you’ve thought that through and wish to share it. According to people on here, the BBC is biased in favour of the Tories, anyway. The licence fee is outdated, and it's shocking that people are forced to pay for content they don't want to watch when the technology is there to make those who want to watch it pay for it. Also, if society's so fragile that it will fall apart at the seams with the end of the BBC, then we're absolutely gubbed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted March 13, 2023 Report Share Posted March 13, 2023 22 hours ago, BuddieinEK said: Ouch.... Bet you feel a right tool now "Where was his opinion on human rights"? Not hard to find... ""Homosexuality is illegal here. Women's rights and freedom of expression are in the spotlight. Also the decision six years ago to switch the World Cup from summer to winter. "Against that backdrop there is a tournament to be played, one that will be watched and enjoyed around the world. "Stick to football, say FIFA, well we will, for a couple of minutes, at least." Ahead of the tournament the former England striker vowed to highlight the issues in the coverage of the tournament, something which he did in his opening monologue." He could have stayed away... Said nothing, and the human rights issues would have gone unchallenged. He chose to go and, despite instructions otherwise, speak out. That answer your rather ridiculous question? Staying away AND saying nothing was not the only option though. He could just as easily made a stand by openly refusing to be part of the tournament coverage and said his piece on other platforms. After all. He did on this recent issue. He chose to take part of the profits and covered it up by saying his piece from the comfort of his amassing fortune. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted March 13, 2023 Report Share Posted March 13, 2023 (edited) 5 hours ago, W6er said: According to people on here, the BBC is biased in favour of the Tories, anyway. The licence fee is outdated, and it's shocking that people are forced to pay for content they don't want to watch when the technology is there to make those who want to watch it pay for it. Also, if society's so fragile that it will fall apart at the seams with the end of the BBC, then we're absolutely gubbed. NO. According to a general benign acceptance by the the UK population the BBC should be an independent/politically neutral entity - one for which we all pay a minimal fee to help ensure the cohesion of our society. It is a great asset - the envy of many societies around the globe. This current stramash is due to the attempt by the current shambolic government to neuter it, to silence all opposition and to fill it with paid right wing henchmen, so that the last bastion of independent opinion can be shut down. The newspapers are all owned by right-wing, non tax-paying, non-domiciled capitalists who have no interest in the general well-being of UK citizens other than for exploitation. They pump out their poison that is seldom subject to the rigorous standards set by the BBC… usually. The licence fee could easily be subsumed into tax. You wouldn’t even know. You'd assume it was yet another of the “free” miracle benefits of being British. It is irrelevant other than to demonstrate that the BBC IS independent of government. You could make your same fallacious comment about the NHS. “It's shocking that fit people have to pay for a service they don’t use”. Same for education and roads. Living in a civilised society has its costs - sometimes paid for by those who are lucky enough to have the least need. ETA: just been on the BBC website. I see where you get your thinking from… “But Tory backbench MP Philip Davies told the Mail Online the BBC's decision was a "pathetic capitulation" to Lineker and the "start of the end for the licence fee", while ex-cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg also warned the "licence fee has passed its sell-by date".” great, forward-thinking company to be keeping…. Edited March 13, 2023 by antrin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W6er Posted March 13, 2023 Report Share Posted March 13, 2023 10 minutes ago, antrin said: NO. According to a general benign acceptance by the the UK population the BBC should be an independent/politically neutral entity - one for which we all pay a minimal fee to help ensure the cohesion of our society. It is a great asset - the envy of many societies around the globe. This current stramash is due to the attempt by the current shambolic government to neuter it, to silence all opposition and to fill it with paid right wing henchmen, so that the last bastion of independent opinion can be shut down. The newspapers are all owned by right-wing, non tax-paying, non-domiciled capitalists who have no interest in the general well-being of UK citizens other than for exploitation. They pump out their poison that is seldom subject to the rigorous standards set by the BBC… usually. The licence fee could easily be subsumed into tax. You wouldn’t even know. You'd assume it was yet another of the “free” miracle benefits of being British. It is irrelevant other than to demonstrate that the BBC IS independent of government. You could make your same fallacious comment about the NHS. “It's shocking that fit people have to pay for a service they don’t use”. Same for education and roads. Living in a civilised society has its costs - sometimes paid for by those who are lucky enough to have the least need. ETA: just been on the BBC website. I see where you get your thinking from… “But Tory backbench MP Philip Davies told the Mail Online the BBC's decision was a "pathetic capitulation" to Lineker and the "start of the end for the licence fee", while ex-cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg also warned the "licence fee has passed its sell-by date".” great, forward-thinking company to be keeping…. Let's hold a referendum on it. I don't consider the BBC an essential need, and I think a lot of poor folk who're struggling to make ends meet won't, either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted March 14, 2023 Report Share Posted March 14, 2023 9 hours ago, W6er said: Let's hold a referendum on it. I don't consider the BBC an essential need, and I think a lot of poor folk who're struggling to make ends meet won't, either... Referendums! The refuge of scoundrels… Why not a referendum on education, nhs and roads, too? You’ve apparently had an education, seem to be fit and don’t use all those roads that require maintenance? Why pay your share for those wonderful facilities? As noted above… ”The newspapers [and other media] are all owned by right-wing, non tax-paying, non-domiciled capitalists who have no interest in the general well-being of UK citizens other than for exploitation. They pump out their poison that is seldom subject to the rigorous standards set by the BBC… usually. The licence fee could easily be subsumed into tax. You wouldn’t even know. You'd assume it was yet another of the “free” miracle benefits of being British. It is irrelevant other than to demonstrate that the BBC IS independent of government.” It’s growing increasingly likely that the “fee” will vanish - and be subsumed into other taxes, anyway. You may be all right with your SKY/Virgin/BT package, Jack… but you’d think a lot of poor folk who're struggling to make ends meet wouldn't be quite so glib. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted March 14, 2023 Report Share Posted March 14, 2023 5 hours ago, antrin said: Referendums! The refuge of scoundrels… Why not a referendum on education, nhs and roads, too? You’ve apparently had an education, seem to be fit and don’t use all those roads that require maintenance? Why pay your share for those wonderful facilities? As noted above… ”The newspapers [and other media] are all owned by right-wing, non tax-paying, non-domiciled capitalists who have no interest in the general well-being of UK citizens other than for exploitation. They pump out their poison that is seldom subject to the rigorous standards set by the BBC… usually. The licence fee could easily be subsumed into tax. You wouldn’t even know. You'd assume it was yet another of the “free” miracle benefits of being British. It is irrelevant other than to demonstrate that the BBC IS independent of government.” It’s growing increasingly likely that the “fee” will vanish - and be subsumed into other taxes, anyway. You may be all right with your SKY/Virgin/BT package, Jack… but you’d think a lot of poor folk who're struggling to make ends meet wouldn't be quite so glib. What some people don't seem to get is that they would have to pay to watch TV anyway and, as you say, there would be no opportunity to have a fair, broad viewpoint. I would gladly continue to pay my licence fee but I believe that any appointments to senior positions should be done by a cross party committee to at least try to ensure we don't end up with a partisan cabal dictating what we are allowed to know. I also think there has to be a U turn, in fact more than that, on the issue of over 70s. I think anyone who is at pension age and exempt from NI should also be exempt from the licence fee. Generally, they've paid enough as it is There is no other route to try to ensure the "normal" folk get the truth. It's not perfect but I don't believe anything would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted March 14, 2023 Report Share Posted March 14, 2023 (edited) 18 hours ago, Warrior Saint said: OK bigot Even better. An oaf Incandescent with rage. Edited March 14, 2023 by FTOF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterian Posted March 14, 2023 Report Share Posted March 14, 2023 On 3/9/2023 at 12:55 PM, beyond our ken said: Hats off to a man i find I actually have stopped disliking over the years and now respect. He says he doesn't fear suspension from the BBC and it maybe would be a good thing if he was suspended as it would give other public figures the chance to refuse to cover his TV role based on a moral stance. It would be inbteresting to see who might decide to take a run at the main chance instead of following a very laudible moral lead It only caused a stir because it was an opinion lots of woke people agree with. He’s entitled to that opinion, of course. Was this the same guy that reported, blow by blow, World Cup games in a country with a questionable human rights record? Is it the same guy who concerns himself with tax avoidance and is currently being investigated? Is it the same guy that is employing Alistair Campbell, a by proxy war criminal? The BBC has got itself in knots over this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 14, 2023 Report Share Posted March 14, 2023 8 minutes ago, Hunterian said: It only caused a stir because it was an opinion lots of woke people agree with. He’s entitled to that opinion, of course. Was this the same guy that reported, blow by blow, World Cup games in a country with a questionable human rights record? Is it the same guy who concerns himself with tax avoidance and is currently being investigated? Is it the same guy that is employing Alistair Campbell, a by proxy war criminal? The BBC has got itself in knots over this issue. His feelings on the world cup have been reported on this thread. The tax situation is what almost everybody in his financial situation would do, nothing to see here. As for Campbell, well, part of a decision making team that were doing it for all the wrong reasons, war criminal, aye, if ye like. I agree the BBC has fcuked this right up, a quiet word would have sufficed, not the knee jerk reaction that they chose to follow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterian Posted March 14, 2023 Report Share Posted March 14, 2023 2 minutes ago, faraway saint said: His feelings on the world cup have been reported on this thread. The tax situation is what almost everybody in his financial situation would do, nothing to see here. As for Campbell, well, part of a decision making team that were doing it for all the wrong reasons, war criminal, aye, if ye like. I agree the BBC has fcuked this right up, a quiet word would have sufficed, not the knee jerk reaction that they chose to follow. The question should be why do people feel the need to risk their neck’s to come to this country? Treat the cause not the symptoms. Lineker is getting so much traction because of his trendy views which happen to agree with other liberals who feel that the Tories are mishandling this issue. In other words they’re standing up for the right for you to agree with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albanian Buddy Posted March 14, 2023 Report Share Posted March 14, 2023 3 minutes ago, Hunterian said: The question should be why do people feel the need to risk their neck’s to come to this country? Multiple reasons. Too many for me to list. Wars. Natural disasters. Climate crisis resulting in droughts and floods that are causing displacement of millions of people on a scale we have not witnessed before in our lifetime. The climate crisis is only going to get worse unfortunately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 14, 2023 Report Share Posted March 14, 2023 9 minutes ago, Hunterian said: The question should be why do people feel the need to risk their neck’s to come to this country? Treat the cause not the symptoms. Lineker is getting so much traction because of his trendy views which happen to agree with other liberals who feel that the Tories are mishandling this issue. In other words they’re standing up for the right for you to agree with them. Of course that's the question but what's the answer? Let's remember all these "poor people" are not coming here to earn an honest living. We, the UK, are in no position to solve these issues, that's why the recent agreement with the French is a step in the right direction. It's more than complicated, easily solved by some but not for realists. Lineker never saw this shitfest coming and, again, I agree with his sentiment, not his analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALBIONSAINT Posted March 14, 2023 Report Share Posted March 14, 2023 (edited) I am beginning to think That GL is being deliberately provocative to keep himself relative, stripping when Leicester won the league was the first stunt……. Edited March 14, 2023 by ALBIONSAINT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALBIONSAINT Posted March 14, 2023 Report Share Posted March 14, 2023 1 hour ago, Albanian Buddy said: Multiple reasons. Too many for me to list. Wars. Natural disasters. Climate crisis resulting in droughts and floods that are causing displacement of millions of people on a scale we have not witnessed before in our lifetime. The climate crisis is only going to get worse unfortunately. Not for the 4 in 10 who come from Albania. The question is why the U.K. ? France as far as I can see is a very wealthy, diverse, liberal country. It would appear that Britain is favoured over other EU countries due to our lack of a state ID scheme. It is therefore easier to work in the black market in the U.K. than France, Germany, Spain etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albanian Buddy Posted March 14, 2023 Report Share Posted March 14, 2023 6 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said: Not for the 4 in 10 who come from Albania. The question is why the U.K. ? France as far as I can see is a very wealthy, diverse, liberal country. It would appear that Britain is favoured over other EU countries due to our lack of a state ID scheme. It is therefore easier to work in the black market in the U.K. than France, Germany, Spain etc. Where is your source for 40% from Albania? Certainly not from here if this is official breakdown: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.