To think this isn’t actually the BBC’s fight?

[notonbodycomparisonsites]

Hear me out… I’m not very politically minded. This is my view as a lay person with unlimited access to the news and the internet…

But my personal opinion is that the BBC shouldn’t be held to task like this, not at this time.

They definitely need to assess their policies on who is allowed to say what and when. But the fact is that a public figure disagreed with the government, and the government didn’t want their actions criticised publicly, so they pulled out the ‘we own the BBC card’ and used BBC policy to attempt to shut the matter up. As far as I’m concerned that seems like a misuse of power, and as much as the BBC need to sort themselves out, I’d rather acknowledge that I’m uncomfortable we even got here to begin with!

For what it’s worth, I don’t actually agree with Gary Lineker’s opinion on the immigration matter and the 1930’s Germany blah blah blah… but I’m still glad I live in a society where I got to hear him say it .

So… AIBU for thinking that we should soon be hearing from the government with a little apology for causing such a major fucking mess?

(Please don’t ask me anything about politics)

Sure.

Shame public opinion wasn't on the side of the Times wasn't it?

Was that in the Opinion/Comment section?

I've read The Times every day for 23 years - the quality is certainly dipping.

BBC can't shout about impartially when they have a Tory donor on their board. The Tories have the BBC tied up in knots. They're also shutting up David Attenborough because the Tories don't want him to mention their disgraceful environmental record on Attenborough's new program. It's a mess and the Tories have caused it, but the BBC can't be cowards. Got to get rid of ANY party political people on their payroll and behave as an independent broadcaster. As for Lineker's remarks? I totally agree it's time Braverman's fascist rhetoric should be called out! Well done Gary.

The Times? The newspaper that pulled a story about the Johnson's because No.10 asked them? That Times @Clavinova?

pointythings
the fact that David Blunkett used that kind of language makes him just as wrong. But back then it was an exception...
I would also argue that the use of this kind of language by people in government is worse than its being used by people in the press, who are all about selling newspapers

This extract has a familiar tone - John Reid, Labour's Home Secretary 2006;

mass migration on a scale that was pretty hitherto unimaginable. I asked for some figures in this—and you will probably be more aware of them than I am, Chairman—but we are talking about UN figures of almost 200 million international migrants. It is the equivalent of a country the size of Brazil. It is more than double the number than were moving in 1980. That is the scale of the problem we have all been trying to cope with...
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhaff/775/6052302.htm
And here:
www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/john-reid-signals-an-end-to-immigration-freeforall-7261053.html
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/3467978/Mass-migration-threatens-Britains-national-security-says-John-Reid.html

Labour's former Home Secretary David Blunkett at it again in 2014;

David Blunkett praises Michael Fallon for ‘swamped by migrants’ comments
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/28/david-blunkett-praises-michael-fallon-swamped-migrants

And yet I still can't see any comparisons with the language used in 1930s Germany as claimed by Gary Lineker.

Leo Varadkar
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar's singling out of Georgia and Albania as the "big driver" behind the country's problem housing asylum seekers has been described as "gaslighting" and "dangerous".

www.independent.ie/regionals/herald/news/taoiseachs-criticism-of-fake-asylum-seekers-is-branded-as-dangerous-38658002.html

Joe Biden
Biden ‘Asylum Ban’ Rule Would Send Thousands to Danger

www.hrw.org/news/2023/02/28/biden-asylum-ban-rule-would-send-thousands-danger
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/22/biden-immigration-mexico-border-asylum-policy

Unfortunately there was no social media or internet back then.

However, there is plenty here so look at this

On 13 March 1933, Nazi Germany established a Ministry of Propaganda, appointing Joseph Goebbels as its Minister. Its goals were to establish enemies in the public mind: the external enemies which had imposed the Treaty of Versailles on Germany, and internal enemies such as Jews, Romani, homosexuals, Bolsheviks, and cultural trends including "degenerate art".

Here

“A grotesque analogy”

I admired Germany when they were having a moral battle with themselves over sending the tanks to Ukraine. Nobody recoiled in horror when past atrocities were mentioned: they straightened up and did what they had to do, which was asses their position before moving forward. Regardless of what individuals felt, as a nation we got one message from them. And they were actually responsible for “1930’s Germany”

I’m actually embarrassed right now that our country can’t have an open discussion about potential missteps based on history, without our leading print media calling it heinous.

Notonthestairs
Was that in the Opinion/Comment section?

Leading Articles
The Times view on the BBC’s dilemma: The Gary Lineker Show
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-the-bbcs-dilemma-the-gary-lineker-show-kr8096mpl

Just looked at the Spectator, mentioned up thread;
Gary Lineker’s offensive Nazi Germany comparison
www.spectator.co.uk/article/gary-linekers-offensive-nazi-germany-comparison/

And for those that disagree with Gary please remember that I do too. I’m not convinced that this policy is that drastic. But I don’t think he was wrong to air his concerns if that’s honestly how he feels; and clearly a large section of our population feel similarly, so I don’t understand why they need to be silenced. If those are the “vibes” people are getting then surely the bloody thing might at least need a look over 🙄

Oh dear, are the Tories circling the wagons @Clavinova? They must be rattled.🤣🤣🤣

Yeah, the Times and the Spectator having a go at Gary Lineker - colour me sooooo surprised!

Got anything juicy from the Mail, Clav?

Just type "Gary Lineker tax" into Google and you'll find pretty much every news site, plus specialist accountancy news sites summarising the dispute which revolves around whether IR35 should apply to him.

If this had happened in China or Russia we would be turning, or perhaps smirking at how at least we have freedom of speech

It’s not just IR35. There are companies he owns in Barbados and BVI. It’s in the Paradise Papers.

Do you think BBC presenters should have free reign on SM from now on?

Fine to think so but you’ll just as likely get views from left and right. Plus impartially will be harder to claim.

It’s up to the BBC as they’re reviewing atm but it could be trickier to maintain argument for license fee

It's the inconsistency that's a problem. I follow Deborah Meaden, and Richard Osman on Twitter. They both have daily/weekly BBC programmes. They are not backward in coming forward on political matters!
Then there's Alan Sugar. Why should they be able to express opinions but GL wasn't?

Some people just don't want to sell their souls to their employer.

"It’s up to the BBC as they’re reviewing atm but it could be trickier to maintain argument for license fee"

Can you explain why it should be linked to the licence fee?

Are viewers considered so silly as to not understand that actors & presenters might have opinions that differ from the Government of the day?

It's public broadcasting not state.

‘Silly’ no

Impacting public perception who knows. The review of the guidelines could be taking that into account when deciding what to do.

I think you & Jacob Rees Mogg do viewers a disservice.

I think viewers are quite able to understand why an actor or presenter might have differing views from the Government of the day and make up their own minds.

It's why I can watch Portillo zipping around on trains and simultaneously ignore his political ponderings on other media.

Always with typical responses.

I don’t think it’s unwise to consider how the public feel or underestimate what those feelings lead to - see Brexit.

I like the BBC, I rely on radio a lot and losing it would damage the music scene in U.K. and other good things.

I don’t know what the review entails but if it does actually ask people what the impact would be I don’t think that’s a bad idea. It could be no change in perception or something. Much better for an organisation to be aware of what people who pay think.

They’ve been on the back foot on this and insights helps to change that.

If you’re right then no issue. If not, better to know.

Im not arguing against a review of guidelines at all.
I'm arguing that there isn't a link between the guidelines and the licence fee.

How do you explain Andrew Neil being able to be editor of the Spectator while being the face of the BBC's main politics show and all the other countless examples? It's blatantly obvious that they're only unhappy when the partiality is towards the Tories. The BBC board is packed with Tories so by this logic they should all resign?

How can you know for certain unless you ask people?

Better to check imo