Will Gary Lineker be presenting Motd on Saturday?

[cesare]

As someone pointed out though, Lineker's conscience is a somewhat moveable feast. Broadcasting from Qatar wasn't a problem.

It's not about Lineker though, is it. Danny's already explained that.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I suppose this is what cancel culture looks like when it comes from the right. Perhaps those of a left persuasion who espouse these tactics might have pause for thought.

Lineker has been subjected to a boycott of one, specifically his boss. Is that really anything to do with culture or is it just one tory prick making a shit decision?

 

[Ax^]

Clarkson is actually defending Lineker as well. To complicate things.

Clarkson media savvy to notice how the country mood is swing same with that prick Morgan

shame the BBC has a tory as a director asking for impartiality as long as its for Tory viewers

 

[danny la rouge]

It’s not about football. I wouldn’t be interested if it was. It’s about the inhuman scapegoating of vulnerable people in abject misery by a government that thinks it’s riding a populist wave of xenophobia.

I have no interest in football. I wouldn’t know which way up to hold one. This is not a football story. This is not a Gary Lineker story. This is a story about the government thinking it can silence criticism of its sickeningly inhumane policy of making applying for asylum essentially illegal. It is about the government using language that dehumanises and vilifies vulnerable people in desperate situations. Lineker called that out. The government objected. The BBC - fresh on the heels of censoring a David Attenborough programme for fear of government objections - behaved in a way that only amplified the point Lineker was making.

The government and the BBC want this to be a “Lineker furore”. It isn’t. It’s an callous and inhuman government furore.

As someone pointed out though, Lineker's conscience is a somewhat moveable feast. Broadcasting from Qatar wasn't a problem.

It’s not about Lineker. It’s not about Lineker. It’s not about Lineker.

 

[Ax^]

As someone pointed out though, Lineker's conscience is a somewhat moveable feast. Broadcasting from Qatar wasn't a problem.

the odd thing about you today is that even the gobshite Morgan and Clarkson can see that the government trying to control the viewpoints of presenters on the national broadcaster is a dangerous precedent

you are arguing about the guys salary whilst saying you are not interesting in reading what he said


go look at the pictures from the game Gary attended today

it how the working class and the country are seeing this

 

[Pickman's model]

As someone pointed out though, Lineker's conscience is a somewhat moveable feast. Broadcasting from Qatar wasn't a problem.

Fine whataboutery

 

[Idaho]

https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2023-03-11/bbc-weatherman-lineker-thinks-hes-so-different-from-rest-of-us

Clearly the BBC are a house divided, with this scoop from ITVX.

 

[xenon]

I went off Boyle for ever after his 'joke' about a disabled child.

I can't remember that one specifically TBH. But in generally liking him, I don't defend everything he's ever said. That would be daft. Everyone has a mate or 2 who say things that are a bit OTT now and then. We make allowances and draw the line in different places of course.

So that it is I agree with Magnus, getting all wound up by Clarksons shooting strikers thing was a bit daft. He wasn't but should not have been kicked off Top Gear for that particular joke. I think I said he should have at the time on here and am just doing a bit of a mea culpa.

 

[Pickman's model]

I can't remember that one specifically TBH. But in generally liking him, I don't defend everything he's ever said. That would be daft. Everyone has a mate or 2 who say things that are a bit OTT now and then. We make allowances and draw the line in different places of course.

So that it is I agree with Magnus, getting all wound up by Clarksons shooting strikers thing was a bit daft. He wasn't but should not have been kicked off Top Gear for that particular joke. I think I said he should have at the time on here and am just doing a bit of a mea culpa.

Gary lineker must have been concerned about Clarkson's view as must Wright and shearer, none of them would want to see strikers shot. Or midfielders, defenders or goalkeepers

 

[WhyLikeThis]

https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2023-03-11/bbc-weatherman-lineker-thinks-hes-so-different-from-rest-of-us

Clearly the BBC are a house divided, with this scoop from ITVX.

Not sure I’d class that as a scoop. A weatherman from Look North is not exactly a BBC heavyweight.

 

[DaveCinzano]

That's just not going to happen!

They'll using Test Card W not Test Card F
View attachment 366371

Plan B is swinging into place

 

[xenon]

We're comparing Clarkson to Lineker?

No see above. Just that narrow point. Allowing even those you don't politically agree with to be able to make crass jokes without calling for them to be cancelled. Racism, misogyny, the other stuff Clarkson has done is a different matter... Anyway is all a bit of a tangent I spose.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Are you doing an Humberto?

I don't think so. I'm not backing Clarkson as I think he's a dick. But it's ridiculous to make an obvious joke into a position to nail someone with.

 

[Idaho]

Not sure I’d class that as a scoop. A weatherman from Look North is not exactly a BBC heavyweight.

Yeah that...uh...

 

[Pickman's model]

Not sure I’d class that as a scoop. A weatherman from Look North is not exactly a BBC heavyweight.

And also on a rather different contract

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Lineker has been subjected to a boycott of one, specifically his boss. Is that really anything to do with culture or is it just one tory prick making a shit decision?

You mean other people being sacked for opinions doesn't involve bosses making similar decisions?

 

[cesare]

I don't think so. I'm not backing Clarkson as I think he's a dick. But it's ridiculous to make an obvious joke into a position to nail someone with.

I just don't get why you and xenon are haring down this sidealley when the issue is not about Lineker and the people you compare with Lineker.

 

[cesare]

No see above. Just that narrow point. Allowing even those you don't politically agree with to be able to make crass jokes without calling for them to be cancelled. Racism, misogyny, the other stuff Clarkson has done is a different matter... Anyway is all a bit of a tangent I spose.

The tangent is the point I was raising. It's nothing to do with what's going on as Danny has said at least twice.

 

[Ax^]

https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2023-03-11/bbc-weatherman-lineker-thinks-hes-so-different-from-rest-of-us

Clearly the BBC are a house divided, with this scoop from ITVX.

Replying to the forecaster's original tweet, Daniel Norris said: "You should be able to say exactly how you feel about any topic and share your opinions freely on this platform."

Hudson replied: "But we can’t. I’d get sacked. You can argue the rules are wrong, but The rules of my employment are very clear. And that’s the point I’m making."

snidey dig at his employers or a lickspuddly not sure yet

 

[SpookyFrank]

You mean other people being sacked for opinions doesn't involve bosses making similar decisions?

Do you actually know what you think you're on about are are you just headbutting the keyboard and hoping for the best?

 

[xenon]

The tangent is the point I was raising. It's nothing to do with what's going on as Danny has said at least twice.

Just an aside. It is a bit about Linekar too though as had it been some lowly techie from BBC who said this on twitter no one would have noticed or cared much. His profile is useful in higlighting the issue, making people have to think about the rhetoric or pretend they're not whilst slagging him off.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I just don't get why you and xenon are haring down this sidealley when the issue is not about Lineker and the people you compare with Lineker.

Hmm, it isn't about who I compare with Lineker, but by other posters doing that whilst pretending an obvious joke was an actual position. Not sure that aids any argument tbh.

 

[cesare]

Hmm, it isn't about who I compare with Lineker, but by other posters doing that whilst pretending an obvious joke was an actual position. Not sure that aids any argument tbh.

It's got nothing to do with the topic though, has it?

 

[Ax^]

hmm make one racist joke slight dodgy make it part of your on screen character its a little dodgy


#




cunt should of been sacked

now bored of clarkson as whataboutery

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Do you actually know what you think you're on about are are you just headbutting the keyboard and hoping for the best

I like it when you start to become abusive because it signifies that you've abandoned your position and are angry about the fact.

 

[Pickman's model]

Hmm, it isn't about who I compare with Lineker, but by other posters doing that whilst pretending an obvious joke was an actual position. Not sure that aids any argument tbh.

We need certainty

 

[Magnus McGinty]

It's got nothing to do with the topic though, has it?

Clarkson being a BBC presenter who got away for years with being obnoxious in the press has everything to do with the subject. But at least point at the right occasions.

 

[cesare]

Just an aside. It is a bit about Linekar too though as had it been some lowly techie from BBC who said this on twitter no one would have noticed or cared much. His profile is useful in higlighting the issue, making people have to think about the rhetoric or pretend they're not whilst slagging him off.

He's hardly comparable to Clarkson in getting attention though, and it's a diversion from what Lineker was pointing to. I prefer that Lineker's pointing doesn't get diluted by fucking comparisons to that cunt Clarkson.

 

[Pickman's model]

I like it when you start to become abusive because it signifies that you've abandoned your position and are angry about the fact.

He needs to work on his talking dirty tho

 

[SpookyFrank]

I like it when you start to become abusive because it signifies that you've abandoned your position and are angry about the fact.

What was your position again? That it was 'cancel culture' that canned Lineker not the specific named human person who actually made the decision?

And that this should make people think twice before taking part in cultural boycotts of manifestly dodgy people, because those two situations are functionally equivalent?

If so, I suggest you abandon it now and beat the rush.