What is going on at the BBC right now?

[LookItsMeAgain]

What with the news breaking today ( 10/03/23) that Lineker is to step back from presenting Match of the Day and now Ian Wright is also not going to appear on the show in solidarity. They also have said that they will not air a David Attenborough (what the hell did he do/say that pushed their buttons) episode due to fears of a right-wing backlash. On top of that, Fiona Bruce has said that Stanley Johnson 'only' broke his wife's nose once (I mean just how many times is too many, I ask ye).

What the hell is going on at the BBC right now????

Sources:
David Attenborough being cancelled
Gary Lineker stepping back from MotD
Ian Wright standing by Gary
Fiona Bruce story

Just wondering if anyone can make sense of what is going on in the BBC at the moment.

Well of course they haven’t.

The Tories are not going to suddenly start throwing money at public services. They haven’t for 13 years. All that will, and can, happen is the poorest in our country will struggle even further for housing and medical care. Not to mention the risk to women and girls which the left wing conveniently sweep under the rug because the men in question are the wrong colour.

They have been warm all winter at my expense, unlike me, a uk taxpayer, born here, a human also, that my country is supposed to put first, before other nationalities.
you are blaming the wrong people. Blame the government for not subsidising our fuel, allowing energy companies to make extortionate profits off the back of the energy and cost of living crisis. It is NOT the fault of asylum seekers.
The government have really done a number getting the fearful or credulous or bigoted or intellectually vulnerable to believe it’s immigrants fault.
When a lot of people realise they are being played almost constantly by the government to shift the blame, they will be livid.

from the BBC guidelines. Just published on Twitter:

“Actors, dramatists, comedians, musicians and pundits who work for the BBC are not subject to the requirements of impartiality on social media.”

so there you go.

What does ‘blaming the government’ do? What does it involve?

The issues making me cold are :-

Greedy energy companies

THE GRA -

I can't access the NHS etc because of Annexe B, so I can't earn more money.

A war in Ukraine I couldn't care less about their border dispute, why their border is deemed more important and our border is weird, people wanting one in NI and the border in kent open is odd, we deal with Putin when he attacks us directly is my opinion, happy to help vulnerable Ukrainian women and children bombed out of homes while their men fight.

Death cult animal and earth worshippers making demands.

Ah but you overlook how enjoyable they are finding being outraged by GL's tweet.
Never mind the contractual basis.

*Final Score is not the same as the videprinter. That appeared in a much longer programme hosted by, for example, Des Lynam in Grandstand days. Final Score is an entire programme and quite an important part of the BBC sports output.

The BBC has really struggled to meet its commitment to televised sport - which many people pay their licence fee for, after all*

Perhaps then time to show some other sports.

There is no need to have final score in this day and age. Plenty of apps are out there showing the football scores. Having somebody provide a running commentary of scores is pointless.

You clearly don't watch it.

BBC has also lamentably failed to win the rights for other sports.

I get you, but that’s when it was woolly. The facts are out there now, no arguing with those.

What does ‘blaming the government’ do? What does it involve?
You know how democracy works, right? Vote, protest, make noise. Question the media, politics, etc. Not just those you think you disagree with.

Nothing will change if we keep on accepting this. The Tories have been in power too long, they are actively taking steps to curtail all our human rights, rights to protest, right to free speech, continue to underfund the NHS, and so on ad nauseam.

The Tories will be rubbing their hands with glee that so many are willing to blame immigrants for crises and deprivation across this country instead of themselves, who are the real culprits here.

And from what I can see on this thread, some people are still credulous enough to continue to blindly blame the wrong people. Those people are part of the problems they claim to be suffering under. They are complicit through their ignorance and credulity.

I do but what effect has all that had over the last 13 years?

And how does filling the country with refugees make that all go away?

Youre cutting off the noses of working class people in Kent to spite the Tories who won’t even care, in fact they’ll laugh

"I get you, but that’s when it was woolly. The facts are out there now, no arguing with those."

Agreed. But note that your post is pretty much ignored by anyone still fretting that GL broke his contract and must be punished.

Besides which we haven't let facts govern political discourse for many years.

Yes, which to be honest isn't always apparent when I take GS to his matches. I suppose to be fair to the players it is usually their parents who seem to have issues.

This whole thing is a win-win for the Tories. If they carry on like this people will think they’re the ‘party that deals with immigration, Labour wouldn’t’.

If they fail in their motion, and more refugees are granted asylum here than ever, people will vote for the Tories because ‘Labour won’t do anything about them, they’re too soft.’

It makes me laugh that people think this Bill being overturned is a triumph for the left wing and asylum seekers when it would have an equally disastrous effect.

The reason the Tories became so popular in the late 2000s is because working class people felt the middle class champagne socialists were willing to sacrifice their living standards in favour of uncontrolled mass immigration and called them ‘bigots’ if they said anything.

Had Labour listened and not been so sneery, we wouldn’t even have a Tory government at the moment 🤷🏼‍♀️ you’re making this all happen again.

We seem to be back to the 50s or even the 40s with all the talk about men having to fight while women come here to be safe. Most, if not all, armies in the world have women in them, do people really think women don't care about their countries as much as men do? Or is it that we poor weak fragile women need big strong men to fight for us? I'm not sure where feminism has gone since the 60s but it all seems a bit odd to me.

Oh I don't know. The creepy, sick fuck who said that women who support Asylum seekers deserve to be raped and that more men from abroad restricted access to women for British men is pretty bad. As are the Mnetting fangirls who applauded what he said.🤮

Our approval rate is high, it has increased a fair bit over the years too. For some countries eg Albania it’s zero or near to whereas we do approve.

My take is currently there’s no way within current law to say no to an asylum seeker no matter how they arrive, eg boats via smugglers.

So it will take a large chunk of money to stop them arriving - hence half a billion to France however I doubt that will be 100% effective.

re the answer being safe routes

We have safe routes, we can and likely will establish more, but you still need a mechanism for what to do when boats outside this route arrive.

The Illegal migration bill is impractical, unworkable and not intended to come in to being. That's why they can't bring themselves to publish the legal advice they received when they dreamt up the policy. We won't see any happening this year and probably not next year either.

It's an electioneering policy designed to give the party a hope in May elections and in the next GE. Rwanda didn't work and this is no different. They are throwing money and Parliamentary time at projects that they don't have any intention of implementing. Heaven only knows how much this will cost and with zero benefit (again like Rwanda £140 million for diddly).

We need to process applications in France, open and signpost safe routes so money isn't diverted to smugglers and then properly equip the Home Office to process applications speedily and then put in to action swift return agreements with relevant countries.

An efficient well run fast asylum application process is a deterrent in itself.
Having a 160,000 and growing backlog is not.

We have safe routes...

A reminder: Not one Afghan has been brought to the UK under pathway 3 of ACRS.

Ministers are STILL saying they "look forward to welcoming the first arrivals to the UK".

The 1000 allocated places; the 22 figure; the 4 figure from last yr - they're all red herrings.

twitter.com/nicolakelly/status/1633022861601390592?s=46&t=Uw4lJNwxFZFnX0Xs3doHYg

A reminder: 8,600 Afghans risked the dangerous Channel crossing last year - because there is no other way

Forced to travel irregularly at great risk & with great hope, they will be punished severely under Sunak's proposed Illegal Migration Bill

twitter.com/emilyagraham2/status/1633031132684877824?s=46&t=Uw4lJNwxFZFnX0Xs3doHYg

This whole thing is a win-win for the Tories.

That’s an unusual interpretation of what’s basically a PR disaster for them.

We need to process applications in France, open and signpost safe routes so money isn't diverted to smugglers and then properly equip the Home Office to process applications speedily and then put in to action swift return agreements with relevant countries.

Do you have a limit on how many are a yes or if criteria is met is it unlimited?

Youre cutting off the noses of working class people in Kent to spite the Tories who won’t even care, in fact they’ll laugh
I’m a working class person in Kent!
The Tories are laughing at us all.
13 years in charge and the Tories haven’t improved things, immigration, the NHS, the care system, support for vulnerable children. It isn’t the fault of migrants, it’s this government.
The only way to effect real change and improvement is to have a change of government. Any party in power for 13 years is in power for too long. Policies go by unchecked, unmoderated. Their power becomes almost absolute.
But even if you continue to ignorantly blame migrants, the crisis has been under a Tory government. The numbers have risen under a Tory government.

I think it's just over 70% of the US population is unfit for combat.

It's mostly men who can win a war.

Women suffer sexism from society and the NHS (charhing women via tax yet blocking them access via Anbexe B) so are often unanle or unfit to fight, the (uterus havers and chest feeders) are often pregnant and feeding another human so can't fight, they are also likely abandoned by almost everyone if they or a child is sick, so have disproportionate care responsibilities. Not many women compared to men will be able to fight in many countries with worse healthcare.

I shall leave the inhumane male supremacy Foucault fans like Lineker, who don't want to take responsibility for the damage they cause, to it, their hurt ego matters more than the collateral damage they inflict on others.