NPR

geordie_6 wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 9:49 pm

Hal Jordan wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 6:02 pm As a wag put it on Twitter, that'll teach the BBC to employ strikers.

What a craven bunch - they've also decided against broadcasting the final episode of the new Attenborough series
on air for fear of engaging the usual right wing cunts. It talks about habitat destruction and climate change. "But you can see it on iplayer".

Digging into this a little bit, the WWF and RSPB pages about the series describes it as a five part series? They have apparently co-funded the documentary. It does seem unusual though as many of Sir David's recent documentaries have included an episode on our impact on the environment and climate change.

fishfoodie wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 11:22 am

I like neeps wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 9:37 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 7:48 pm

And Alex Scott.

If anyone does agree to host they're going to want a public statement from Lineker he's cool with them doing so, at minimum along the lines of he doesn't want a story about him to overshadow the football, but even that would be scant cover

Football media is a tough gig to get recognition, I'm sure they'll get some C-listers.

They should bring Le Tissier involved. He's of the right political opinions to do well at the BBC.

It doesn't look like they can get anyone to present, & the disgust at the actions of the Beeb has reached as far as the current players.

We have been informed that players involved in today’s games will not be asked to participate in interviews with Match of the Day.

The PFA have been speaking to members who wanted to take a collective position and to be able to show their support for those who have chosen not to be part of tonight’s programme.

During those conversations we made clear that, as their union, we would support all members who might face consequences for choosing not to complete their broadcast commitments.

This is a common sense decision that ensures players won’t now be put in that position.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/ ... ff7c2bbafc

The genius running the Beeb might be able to hook people up with 800k bungs, but he knows SFA about PR.

Until Lineker is re-instated; I wouldn't recommend sticking a microphone in front of any player; & the longer the Beeb tries holding out, the worse it'll get

Someone who has come out in support of the BBC is billionaire and philanthropist John Caudwell.

He is well known as the founder of former retailer Phones 4U, and is a major donor to the Conservative party - he gave the Tories £500,000 ahead of the 2019 general election.

Writing on Twitter, Caudwell says the "circus" around Lineker "distracts from the real issues with refugees".

"It's fine to have an opinion and express it in a fair way," he says.

"But as British taxpayers pay his salary, he should be promoting Britain not comparing the country to Nazi Germany.

"That’s unpatriotic and damaging to Britain's image!"

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 11:30 am

geordie_6 wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 9:49 pm

Hal Jordan wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 6:02 pm As a wag put it on Twitter, that'll teach the BBC to employ strikers.

What a craven bunch - they've also decided against broadcasting the final episode of the new Attenborough series
on air for fear of engaging the usual right wing cunts. It talks about habitat destruction and climate change. "But you can see it on iplayer".

Digging into this a little bit, the WWF and RSPB pages about the series describes it as a five part series? They have apparently co-funded the documentary. It does seem unusual though as many of Sir David's recent documentaries have included an episode on our impact on the environment and climate change.

The BBC bought the sixth as something for Iplayer and never intended to broadcast it, as you say it was a five part series with the other made for the WWF. Amazing how many people on twitter etc pivot straight from ‘lol those gammons will swallow anything they read in the Daily Mail’ to believing the BBC cancelled David Attenborough.

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 11:30 am

geordie_6 wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 9:49 pm

Hal Jordan wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 6:02 pm As a wag put it on Twitter, that'll teach the BBC to employ strikers.

What a craven bunch - they've also decided against broadcasting the final episode of the new Attenborough series
on air for fear of engaging the usual right wing cunts. It talks about habitat destruction and climate change. "But you can see it on iplayer".

Digging into this a little bit, the WWF and RSPB pages about the series describes it as a five part series? They have apparently co-funded the documentary. It does seem unusual though as many of Sir David's recent documentaries have included an episode on our impact on the environment and climate change.

The BBC bought the sixth as something for Iplayer and never intended to broadcast it, as you say it was a five part series with the other made for the WWF. Amazing how many people on twitter etc pivot straight from ‘lol those gammons will swallow anything they read in the Daily Mail’ to believing the BBC cancelled David Attenborough.

sockwithaticket wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:51 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 11:30 am

geordie_6 wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 9:49 pm

Digging into this a little bit, the WWF and RSPB pages about the series describes it as a five part series? They have apparently co-funded the documentary. It does seem unusual though as many of Sir David's recent documentaries have included an episode on our impact on the environment and climate change.

The BBC bought the sixth as something for Iplayer and never intended to broadcast it, as you say it was a five part series with the other made for the WWF. Amazing how many people on twitter etc pivot straight from ‘lol those gammons will swallow anything they read in the Daily Mail’ to believing the BBC cancelled David Attenborough.

How common is that, though? I genuinely don't know, but I've not seen anything on the iPlayer that doesn't have a 'first broadcast on date', so it strikes me as odd that this thing in particular would be an iPlayer exclusive. Given the Tories at the top of the BBC, I can't help but be cynical and suspect that it has a whiff of retroactive justification about it.

Of course it could just be that my interests haven't really intersected with anything that hasn't had a full broadcast and thus am blissfully ignorant of a plethora of content that is direct to iPlayer.

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:03 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:51 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 11:30 am
The BBC bought the sixth as something for Iplayer and never intended to broadcast it, as you say it was a five part series with the other made for the WWF. Amazing how many people on twitter etc pivot straight from ‘lol those gammons will swallow anything they read in the Daily Mail’ to believing the BBC cancelled David Attenborough.

How common is that, though? I genuinely don't know, but I've not seen anything on the iPlayer that doesn't have a 'first broadcast on date', so it strikes me as odd that this thing in particular would be an iPlayer exclusive. Given the Tories at the top of the BBC, I can't help but be cynical and suspect that it has a whiff of retroactive justification about it.

Of course it could just be that my interests haven't really intersected with anything that hasn't had a full broadcast and thus am blissfully ignorant of a plethora of content that is direct to iPlayer.

There's loads of this sort of stuff on Iplayer, as a few weeks on furlough revealed to me a few years ago. And what do the Tories stand to lose from a daytime tv nature documentary?

sockwithaticket wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:16 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:03 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:51 pm

How common is that, though? I genuinely don't know, but I've not seen anything on the iPlayer that doesn't have a 'first broadcast on date', so it strikes me as odd that this thing in particular would be an iPlayer exclusive. Given the Tories at the top of the BBC, I can't help but be cynical and suspect that it has a whiff of retroactive justification about it.

Of course it could just be that my interests haven't really intersected with anything that hasn't had a full broadcast and thus am blissfully ignorant of a plethora of content that is direct to iPlayer.

There's loads of this sort of stuff on Iplayer, as a few weeks on furlough revealed to me a few years ago. And what do the Tories stand to lose from a daytime tv nature documentary?

Well, there is a long gestating conflict between the general antipathy of ministers and donors towards environmental issues and party members/reliable Tory voters. The grey hairs like walks in woods, living in the countryside, hedgehogs, robins and so on. My own parents have viciously turned against the party over the last decade well still being lukewarm about Labour. What the Conservatives really don't need is a lot of those people viewing something that attacks what's been allowed to happen to British nature at least partly on their watch via the BBC which still commands a lot of trust in that demographic. Relegating it to the iPlayer means a lot of that audience won't find it.

Then you only have to look at the above comments from a major Tory donor about Linekar 'making the country look bad' and plenty of comments from ministers during the Brexit deal years that effectively amounted to "people's attitudes are the problem" - they don't like stuff that challenges the image they want to project of the version of Britain that they've created, they like to exert control where possible.

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:21 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:16 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:03 pm

There's loads of this sort of stuff on Iplayer, as a few weeks on furlough revealed to me a few years ago. And what do the Tories stand to lose from a daytime tv nature documentary?

Well, there is a long gestating conflict between the general antipathy of ministers and donors towards environmental issues and party members/reliable Tory voters. The grey hairs like walks in woods, living in the countryside, hedgehogs, robins and so on. My own parents have viciously turned against the party over the last decade well still being lukewarm about Labour. What the Conservatives really don't need is a lot of those people viewing something that attacks what's been allowed to happen to British nature at least partly on their watch via the BBC which still commands a lot of trust in that demographic. Relegating it to the iPlayer means a lot of that audience won't find it.

Then you only have to look at the above comments from a major Tory donor about Linekar 'making the country look bad' and plenty of comments from ministers during the Brexit deal years that effectively amounted to "people's attitudes are the problem" - they don't like stuff that challenges the image they want to project of the version of Britain that they've created, they like to exert control where possible.

It wasn't relegated to Iplayer - it was never intended to be on TV! Not everything is a conspiracy.

fishfoodie wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:25 pm I wonder if Lineker would be interested in running as an Independent against the blonde turd, whenever he settles on a "safe" seat ?

sockwithaticket wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:26 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:21 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:16 pm

Well, there is a long gestating conflict between the general antipathy of ministers and donors towards environmental issues and party members/reliable Tory voters. The grey hairs like walks in woods, living in the countryside, hedgehogs, robins and so on. My own parents have viciously turned against the party over the last decade well still being lukewarm about Labour. What the Conservatives really don't need is a lot of those people viewing something that attacks what's been allowed to happen to British nature at least partly on their watch via the BBC which still commands a lot of trust in that demographic. Relegating it to the iPlayer means a lot of that audience won't find it.

Then you only have to look at the above comments from a major Tory donor about Linekar 'making the country look bad' and plenty of comments from ministers during the Brexit deal years that effectively amounted to "people's attitudes are the problem" - they don't like stuff that challenges the image they want to project of the version of Britain that they've created, they like to exert control where possible.

It wasn't relegated to Iplayer - it was never intended to be on TV! Not everything is a conspiracy.

Well, that's what the Beeb hierarchy say now that the decision has caught some attention. Not everything no, but I don't trust a word anyone connected to the Tory party says and they've earnt that level of scepticism.

fishfoodie wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:25 pm I wonder if Lineker would be interested in running as an Independent against the blonde turd, whenever he settles on a "safe" seat ?

tabascoboy wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:25 pm "damaging to Britain's image" - rather minor compared to how the Government is doing the same globally and to a far greater extent

Someone who has come out in support of the BBC is billionaire and philanthropist John Caudwell.

He is well known as the founder of former retailer Phones 4U, and is a major donor to the Conservative party - he gave the Tories £500,000 ahead of the 2019 general election.

Writing on Twitter, Caudwell says the "circus" around Lineker "distracts from the real issues with refugees".

"It's fine to have an opinion and express it in a fair way," he says.

"But as British taxpayers pay his salary, he should be promoting Britain not comparing the country to Nazi Germany.

"That’s unpatriotic and damaging to Britain's image!"

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:31 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:26 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:21 pm

It wasn't relegated to Iplayer - it was never intended to be on TV! Not everything is a conspiracy.

Well, that's what the Beeb hierarchy say now that the decision has caught some attention. Not everything no, but I don't trust a word anyone connected to the Tory party says and they've earnt that level of scepticism.

Or alternatively the charities involved are saying this. People shouldn't be so credulous, or if they are should be more careful with 'lol Daily Mail' stuff, was my point.

This government are 25 points down in the polls and can't run a bath - the idea they're censoring nature documentaries (when there's already been five in the series) to win an election is laughable, and if they tried they'd probably cock it up and end up with Coffey sitting on a kitten on camera or something.

sockwithaticket wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:51 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:31 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:26 pm

Well, that's what the Beeb hierarchy say now that the decision has caught some attention. Not everything no, but I don't trust a word anyone connected to the Tory party says and they've earnt that level of scepticism.

Or alternatively the charities involved are saying this. People shouldn't be so credulous, or if they are should be more careful with 'lol Daily Mail' stuff, was my point.

This government are 25 points down in the polls and can't run a bath - the idea they're censoring nature documentaries (when there's already been five in the series) to win an election is laughable, and if they tried they'd probably cock it up and end up with Coffey sitting on a kitten on camera or something.

Obviously they're not doing it directly, but there's a reason they've installed donors at the top of the Beeb. It's to make sure that the 'right' (i.e. those in their interest) decisions are being made.

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:56 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:51 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:31 pm


Or alternatively the charities involved are saying this. People shouldn't be so credulous, or if they are should be more careful with 'lol Daily Mail' stuff, was my point.

This government are 25 points down in the polls and can't run a bath - the idea they're censoring nature documentaries (when there's already been five in the series) to win an election is laughable, and if they tried they'd probably cock it up and end up with Coffey sitting on a kitten on camera or something.

Obviously they're not doing it directly, but there's a reason they've installed donors at the top of the Beeb. It's to make sure that the 'right' (i.e. those in their interest) decisions are being made.

I have sympathy for this on Lineker/news editorials, it’s just total bollocks on the nature documentary and most of the people falling for it should be smarter than that

Tichtheid wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 2:04 pm The real story isn't about Lineker or a tv documentary, the real story is the abhorrent and illegal immigration policy.

I imagine the government will be quite happy with the deflection among those that wouldn't vote for them, all the while appealing to the basest of instincts among those who support them.

Tichtheid wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 8:02 pm A mate on FB says MOTD will only show action from the right wing this evening

Biffer wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 5:55 am

Jim Lahey wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 7:11 am Half a million more viewers of MotD on Saturday than the previous week

I was one of them. Can't say I missed Lineker, Shearer or Wright too much. Think the BBC will ride this storm for a few weeks then bring in some C listers at a serious discount in wages to do the job.

C69 wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 9:37 am Commentators also refused to work and a number of managers and players also refused to be interviewed If asked.
Apparently the World service (?) commentary is not able to be used.

The flagship sports show of the Beeb is now down the shitter.
They have really dropped a bollock over this

Suspending a football commentator for a tweet when the chairman is still working after donating £400K to the Tory Party and helping to arrange a near £1m loan.

Lol


At scrum time the ball was being passed to the back of the Irish scrum.
It was hilarious to watch as a neutral.
Well I say neutral but Ireland are my second team.

Joost wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:05 am While what Lineker did was probably a breach of the impartiality rules, suspending him and creating this massive sh!t storm has been a spectacular piece of mismanagement by the Beeb.

Could the Chairman (who is apparently good friends with Lineker) not just have pulled him aside and said ‘look Gary, far be it from me to clip your wings on Twitter, you’re only a sports journo after all. But if you’re going to wade into the debate on the Govt’s latest abhorrent policy, do you think you could avoid comparing them to the f%cking Nazis? You know as well as I do that these chinless f%cks would love to scrap the licence fee and restructure us and having our highest-paid presenter spouting the sort of sh!t that a clueless 6th former would probably later reflect on as being a bit stupid and reactionary isn’t helping. Livelihoods depend on this sh!t. Right, now, I’ll tell them we’ve spoken and discussed the rules on impartiality and that you understand that there’s a subtle difference between having a horrible immigration policy and committing systemic genocide and repression of millions of people. Right. Lunch?’

Joost wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:05 am While what Lineker did was probably a breach of the impartiality rules, suspending him and creating this massive sh!t storm has been a spectacular piece of mismanagement by the Beeb.

Could the Chairman (who is apparently good friends with Lineker) not just have pulled him aside and said ‘look Gary, far be it from me to clip your wings on Twitter, you’re only a sports journo after all. But if you’re going to wade into the debate on the Govt’s latest abhorrent policy, do you think you could avoid comparing them to the f%cking Nazis? You know as well as I do that these chinless f%cks would love to scrap the licence fee and restructure us and having our highest-paid presenter spouting the sort of sh!t that a clueless 6th former would probably later reflect on as being a bit stupid and reactionary isn’t helping. Livelihoods depend on this sh!t. Right, now, I’ll tell them we’ve spoken and discussed the rules on impartiality and that you understand that there’s a subtle difference between having a horrible immigration policy and committing systemic genocide and repression of millions of people. Right. Lunch?’

Joost wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:05 am While what Lineker did was probably a breach of the impartiality rules, suspending him and creating this massive sh!t storm has been a spectacular piece of mismanagement by the Beeb.

Could the Chairman (who is apparently good friends with Lineker) not just have pulled him aside and said ‘look Gary, far be it from me to clip your wings on Twitter, you’re only a sports journo after all. But if you’re going to wade into the debate on the Govt’s latest abhorrent policy, do you think you could avoid comparing them to the f%cking Nazis? You know as well as I do that these chinless f%cks would love to scrap the licence fee and restructure us and having our highest-paid presenter spouting the sort of sh!t that a clueless 6th former would probably later reflect on as being a bit stupid and reactionary isn’t helping. Livelihoods depend on this sh!t. Right, now, I’ll tell them we’ve spoken and discussed the rules on impartiality and that you understand that there’s a subtle difference between having a horrible immigration policy and committing systemic genocide and repression of millions of people. Right. Lunch?’

sockwithaticket wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:10 am

Joost wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:05 am While what Lineker did was probably a breach of the impartiality rules, suspending him and creating this massive sh!t storm has been a spectacular piece of mismanagement by the Beeb.

Could the Chairman (who is apparently good friends with Lineker) not just have pulled him aside and said ‘look Gary, far be it from me to clip your wings on Twitter, you’re only a sports journo after all. But if you’re going to wade into the debate on the Govt’s latest abhorrent policy, do you think you could avoid comparing them to the f%cking Nazis? You know as well as I do that these chinless f%cks would love to scrap the licence fee and restructure us and having our highest-paid presenter spouting the sort of sh!t that a clueless 6th former would probably later reflect on as being a bit stupid and reactionary isn’t helping. Livelihoods depend on this sh!t. Right, now, I’ll tell them we’ve spoken and discussed the rules on impartiality and that you understand that there’s a subtle difference between having a horrible immigration policy and committing systemic genocide and repression of millions of people. Right. Lunch?’

From what I saw Lineker likened policies to 1930s Germany, not the Holocaust, so it would appear that he's already aware of that difference.

Joost wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:27 am

sockwithaticket wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:10 am

Joost wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:05 am While what Lineker did was probably a breach of the impartiality rules, suspending him and creating this massive sh!t storm has been a spectacular piece of mismanagement by the Beeb.

Could the Chairman (who is apparently good friends with Lineker) not just have pulled him aside and said ‘look Gary, far be it from me to clip your wings on Twitter, you’re only a sports journo after all. But if you’re going to wade into the debate on the Govt’s latest abhorrent policy, do you think you could avoid comparing them to the f%cking Nazis? You know as well as I do that these chinless f%cks would love to scrap the licence fee and restructure us and having our highest-paid presenter spouting the sort of sh!t that a clueless 6th former would probably later reflect on as being a bit stupid and reactionary isn’t helping. Livelihoods depend on this sh!t. Right, now, I’ll tell them we’ve spoken and discussed the rules on impartiality and that you understand that there’s a subtle difference between having a horrible immigration policy and committing systemic genocide and repression of millions of people. Right. Lunch?’

From what I saw Lineker likened policies to 1930s Germany, not the Holocaust, so it would appear that he's already aware of that difference.

In fact I believe he compared the language used to 1930s Germany, but if you’re going to invoke the Nazi comparison, I don’t think you can really separate that from the holocaust (“No, no, you misunderstand. I didn’t mean the genocidal, death camp Nazis of the 1940s. I meant the book burning, window smashing Nazis of the 1930s”).

Personal bugbear - invoking the Nazis allows the Govt to avoid and distract from some incredibly serious concerns about this policy and paint opponents of the policy and the messaging around it as reactionary idiots, when in fact there are some very troubling things which they should be being pulled up on - saying that illegal migrants will have no modern slavery protections - so if you’re trafficked here you’re fair game?? What about those children that travelled here alone and were taken from a hotel by traffickers, no protection for them from exploitation?!