Lineker. Winner or Woketard w@nker?

Poll Poll Lineker. Winner or woketard?

  • Winner

    Votes: 14 29.8%

  • Woketard

    Votes: 33 70.2%
  • Total voters
    47
C

Chris_D

Elite
 Mostly Holland. Sometimes UK.
When I was working for various companies as a staffer or subcontractor I was subject to various rules, regulations and guidelines, to which I had no objection to understanding, appreciating and conforming to. Sometimes I even had to sign the Official Secrets Act when working on certain projects for BAe Systems, BNFL etc., which meant I'd receive a damn good thrashing and thrown into a dungeon and fed bread and water for 50 years if I started talking about or opinionating on social media about what I was doing for these outfits.

So it comes as a bit of a surprise that someone like Lineker can blatantly go against his employers' rules and I assume the terms of his employment contract by sharing his woke and misguided opinions on the Governments' policy on immigration and seemingly (up to now at least) get away with it without recourse or consequence.
It's not the fact that he's 'standing up' for supposed asylum seekers, it's more the fact that he's the highest paid presenter by the BBC and yet he's dicking all over his employers' rules on how its' presenters conduct themselves on social media and making them look meek and feeble in the process. I'm also astounded and confounded in equal measures at the solidarity shown by his cohorts.

If I had acted in such a seemingly arrogant and undisciplined manner for any of the companies I'd worked with as Lineker has done so I'd have been shown the door and received my P45 faster than I could say 'Salman Ramadan Abedi'! If you don't know who that is then Google is your friend - another supposed asylum seeker.

In any case, I think Paul Joseph Watson sums it up perfectly:
[youtube]Wj7KB5WLJJY[/youtube]

Anyway, to the poll... Lineker; winner or woketard?
 
There is a massive thread on one of the other (higher brow) BMW forums regarding this. People are getting so irate, it's comical.
Who fecking cares? Seriously? This type of 'news' is fodder for the Facebook and Twatter lot IMO.

He is also not an employee of the BBC, apparently. Just a subbie (as are most celebs).
 
Pondrew said:
He is also not an employee of the BBC, apparently. Just a subbie (as are most celebs).
Click to expand...

Not any more - he lost the tax case so is deemed employed by the BBC
 
Pondrew said:
There is a massive thread on one of the other (higher brow) BMW forums regarding this. People are getting so irate, it's comical.
Who fecking cares? Seriously? This type of 'news' is fodder for the Facebook and Twatter lot IMO.

He is also not an employee of the BBC, apparently. Just a subbie (as are most celebs).
Click to expand...
True. There are more much important things in life, but it boils my pi$$ that even though I'm technically 'non domicile' in the UK but am still subject to UK taxes and the feking TV licensing authority that this tw@t, who derives his salary from license-payers can get away with spouting his woke opinions with impunity.
 
The only opinion I have is that MOTD was an absolute joke last night. 20 mins of nothing; all because of a 'spat' with what an ex-footballer said on Twitter.
TBH I don't know what he said, and care even less.
 
The guidance appears to be somewhat vague. From what I've read. None of us have access to his terms and conditions of employment nor what was said behind closed doors but the BBC did have an impartiality rule to ensure their employees did not comment on issues within their related field, in fact back in 2020 I think it was they even used the example that it was ok for a sports presenter to talk about politics as it has no impact on their ability to be impartial in their role.

Should he have posted it, probably not. Is he willing to fall on his own sword for it, well if he does good for him because the language Braverman used was pretty horrific and so many celebs nowadays talk the talk then bottle it when it comes to actually doing anything about it. Braverman dehumanising immigrants, Lineker wasn't a million miles off in terms of the 1930's rhetoric, the government messed up in how they communicated it and they know it. Even the response was poor, telling Lineker to stick to football and crisps, in effect telling all of us not in politics we can't have a view? Shaky ground that.

Ultimately Lineker shouldn't apologise (otherwise he is in effect saying what he said is wrong) but he and the BBC should find a resolution. We all know the BBC are not impartial (cite business loans for Tory leaders) so why pretend to be. Compromise and fix this ridiculous situation.
 
...and weirdly enough breaking news! I genuinely did write that above before seeing the headline just now.

BBC have essentially said their guidelines do not apply equally to all employees i.e. they have in some cases different arrangements, and that there is vagueness in their own guidelines around what employees can and cannot say (as highlighted above) and have apologised. They are going to conduct a review of their guidelines.
 
coldel said:
They are going to conduct a review of their guidelines.
Click to expand...
Wonder how much THAT will cost us? Another 20% on the licence fee next year? :headbang:
 
coldel said:
We all know the BBC are not impartial (cite business loans for Tory leaders) so why pretend to be.
Click to expand...
I think this is reference to the BBC Chairman, not the BBC.
 
The BBC is not impartial, it pretend to be, but its not.

And a review of the guidelines shouldn't that big a job, really. But lets see what they do given they are under the media spotlight.
 
coldel said:
The BBC is not impartial, it pretend to be, but its not.
Click to expand...
Its easy to say (like most things online), but I'd be interested to hear what evidence has drawn you to that conclusion.
 
It is pretty obvious IF you know what you are looking for. And certainly, there are biases in reporting, as highlighted by their reporting of Brexit, COVID even as far back as the Falklands War. Thats before you even look at demographical representation i.e. they do not deliver much in the way for certain socioeconomic groups/ages.

Ofcom from what I remember just over a year ago warned the BBC that they were not hitting their impartiality remit, I wont go back and find and list all their findings, if you have any interest in upskilling on BBC impartiality do go have a google.

I am not saying its an easy thing to do, but to think they are impartial, full stop, is somewhat naive.
 
Pondrew said:
coldel said:
They are going to conduct a review of their guidelines.
Click to expand...
Wonder how much THAT will cost us? Another 20% on the licence fee next year? :headbang:
Click to expand...
Nope,

After this either the licence fee is toast or more likely the Govt will decriminalise non payment making it a civil offence which will make non payment more widespread.
 
inkey$ said:
coldel said:
The BBC is not impartial, it pretend to be, but its not.
Click to expand...
Its easy to say (like most things online), but I'd be interested to hear what evidence has drawn you to that conclusion.
Click to expand...
Ok here is one example.
When was the last time you heard any expert or scientist giving opposing views on climate change being man made?

Which ever side of the argument you are on is irrelevant, you are only getting one side of the argument from the BBC who have decided the science is settled.
 
Nanu said:
inkey$ said:
coldel said:
The BBC is not impartial, it pretend to be, but its not.
Click to expand...
Its easy to say (like most things online), but I'd be interested to hear what evidence has drawn you to that conclusion.
Click to expand...
Ok here is one example.
When was the last time you heard any expert or scientist giving opposing views on climate change being man made?

Which ever side of the argument you are on is irrelevant, you are only getting one side of the argument from the BBC who have decided the science is settled.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen counter arguments on the BBC and elsewhere against man made climate change - right up until quite recently. But I think it’s also fair to say that the science is possibly settled in that particular example, right?
 
inkey$ said:
Nanu said:
inkey$ said:
Its easy to say (like most things online), but I'd be interested to hear what evidence has drawn you to that conclusion.
Click to expand...
Ok here is one example.
When was the last time you heard any expert or scientist giving opposing views on climate change being man made?

Which ever side of the argument you are on is irrelevant, you are only getting one side of the argument from the BBC who have decided the science is settled.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen counter arguments on the BBC and elsewhere against man made climate change - right up until quite recently. But I think it’s also fair to say that the science is possibly settled in that particular example, right?
Click to expand...
Not settled in the least and people such as Nigel Lawson are banned from the BBC for his views. Cannot recall one interview with anyone significant disputing the subject.
 
inkey$ said:
I’d definitely be interested in hearing what the cause of it is.
Click to expand...
Donald Trump has the answer, apparently.
Doesn't seem to matter what the cause is; no-one is really serious about doing anything about it....too expensive and disruptive from us all making our millions! :thumbsup:
 
Pondrew said:
inkey$ said:
I’d definitely be interested in hearing what the cause of it is.
Click to expand...
Donald Trump has the answer, apparently.
Doesn't seem to matter what the cause is; no-one is really serious about doing anything about it....too expensive and disruptive from us all making our millions! :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Sad but largely true, I fear.
I’m off to take some classic Trump advice and drink some bleach (I currently really do have Covid :lol: )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom