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)

In which case I'd like to be able to vote on whether any seat on the board should be a politically appointment.
If the argument is that the anyone who works for the BBC for the period of their employment must be wholly impartial and independent then its about time we removed any Government (of any flavour) influence over the appointments process.

Linker is selective, football and FIFA is totally corrupt, why are so many clubs owned by foreign nationals, like Abramovich? He does not criticise that!

Yep.

And sack a BBC Chair who quite obviously has helped a PM with finances. And also not employ an ex Comms Director of an ex PM on the Board. And who helped set up the most rightwing news channel we have (GBNews). And who surprise surprise forgot to disclose all of this before being appointed!

FIFA didn’t design the country’s policies the last time I looked. Nor does the ownership of football clubs have any effect on them.

@TodayInahurry GL has in fact criticised FIFA and the fact that it chose to give Qatar the World Cup. He did it on air. The BBC allowed it.

The BBC work directly with Netflix to produce shows, and also the fact that they outsource roles to freelance celebrities is, in my opinion, evidence enough that they weren’t impartial for a long time prior to any of this crap.

If they want to have true control over their impartiality, I think they have to stop trying to find sneaky ways around the ‘no advertising clause’ to make extra money and keep up with other broadcasters; and start fixing the damage in their company structure before it collapses.

Or; soon they really are just going to have to accept that they are just another broadcaster like ITV and Channel 4, and they should be regarded as such by the public; not held in any special regard or trusted any more.

@notonbodycomparisonsites I agree with you. I grew up in the Netherlands where every content provider/service has ads and always has had. The broadcasters absolutely do have a platform - some are religiously based (KRO/EO), some are libertarian (AVRO), some are socialist (VARA) and so on. Viewers choose what and who to watch. It's mostly based on content these days, not so much on politics, and there is a national news service which absolutely is unbiased. There isn't however a sacred cow of broadcasting.

The BBC either needs to live up to being that sacred cow or just be another broadcaster like Channel 4 or ITV. They can then decide where they want to stand politically and viewers can choose. I'd prefer that.

@pointythings thank you!! And considering they’re already part of that paid subscription service Britbox, I think I would like them to just accept now that they are no longer that sacred cow altogether; it’s actually starting to feel a bit patronising considering we’re all still paying license fees.

I‘m sure eventually other staff contracts will come into question. It sounds like they would like for their policy to be interpreted as “leave your opinions at the door when you work for us”; and eventually the only way to enforce that will be to say that people can’t post opinions whilst “on the clock”, or even on the premises, but once employee X goes home, GL may have ensured that they can say what the hell they want online in future 🤔

It should be said though that I disagree with you about what Gary Lineker said. He was spot on. As someone from a country which was actually occupied by the Nazis, we learned a great deal about what happened in the runup to WW2, including the way the government of the day used propaganda. He's right. We should all know enough history to see it.

That's a ridiculous comment.

The BBC hasn't been 'neutral' for years.

@pointythings to be honest, I’m starting to disagree with me too. I’d like to do more research and understand it from my own point of view because I find opinions on this site can be quite reductive, but rest assured I’m not ignorant to the importance of the issue. It’s sad that GL saying it wasn’t considered at face value and instead twisted up along with a whole unnecessary dose of righteous indignation. Way to go, Britain.

His views didn't stop him going, working there and getting paid did it?

GL is just a hypocritical champagne socialist who likes to virtue signal, except when it might impact on his wages.

Some genuine sportspersons actually 'put their money where their mouth was' as in1971.
That's when an international sports boycott was instituted against South Africa to voice global disapproval of their selection policies and apartheid in general. South Africa subsequently became a world sporting pariah, and were excluded from the Olympics, the FIFA World Cup, Test cricket, and a host of other sports.

@notonbodycomparisonsites if you're really interested I'd strongly recommend a trip to the various WW1 sites in Belgium/Northern France. You can do guided tours or you can get accommodation and then do your own thing. It's an eye opener, and although many of the exhibitions focus on WW1, the structure of the propaganda used is very much the same, and you can see the roots that it all grew from. I went with DD1 as part of a school project and then took the family on our own as I felt it was too valuable a part of history to miss. Very sobering.

All that being said, if GL was truly firmly behind his views and his right to express them freely, he would have told the BBC to fuck themselves regardless of any apology or money offered. So I’m still not convinced that his opinions are always offered in good faith.

@Wontbringlulu but for some reason there wasn't a global boycott against Qatar, was there? (Though there absolutely should have been). At least GL said something where he had an audience and where it would be heard. Yes, he could have walked. And then nobody would have said anything on air.

Using the term 'champagne socialist' instantly loses you the argument, btw. It's a silly little cheap shot from someone who has nothing better.

@pointythings I would actually love to do that, I’ve been planning to visit France again soon so it can be a part of our visit.

Using the term 'champagne socialist' instantly loses you the argument, btw. It's a silly little cheap shot from someone who has nothing better.

I thought you supported freedom of speech?

Only when it suits, I see .

@Wontbringlulu how is criticising what you say the same as preventing your free speech? Like genuinely, please explain?

I agree OP, the BBC should not be directly answerable to the government under the terms of its charter. That’s why its board should be impartial. Some of the BBC staff reporters appear to have a clear bias at times (coughLauraKuennsbergcough) and this is not right but GL is a freelancer.

GL was right about the similarities to language of the 30s Germany though. I also personally disagree that the BBC shouldn’t use freelancers or find creative ways to generate income over and above the license fee, that does not involve advertising, in this depressing era of massive cost cutting. I didn’t really understand your arguments about this so apologies if I have misunderstood.

His views didn't stop him going, working there and getting paid did it?

Lots of people go to places which don’t reflect their views and values for work and get paid. He said what he thought, what more do you want?

And can we stop with this champagne socialist shit, please? Or I’ll start talking about brown ale Tories. It’s an absurd concept that your financial status should dictate your political views and draw criticism and mockery when you don’t conform to someone else’s stereotype.

@Wontbringlulu you're free to use the phrase. I'm free to consider your arguments inadequate if you do. Hope that clarifies things for you.

@notonbodycomparisonsites if that's your plan, may I recommend the Passchendaele museum at Zonnebeke, the cemetery at Tyne Cot, the German cemetery, the Brooding Soldier (site of the first gas attack) and the Talbot House museum?

@Blossomtoes the 'champagne socialist' epithet is basically used to say that if you're comfortably off, you aren't allowed to criticise society or speak out in support of poorer people, because unless you give away all your money, that makes you a hypocrite. I suppose it's because the right is worried that if wealthier people who actually have some power in society start speaking up against them, they might be listened to...

@Blossomtoes And can we stop with this champagne socialist shit, please?

No,
It's true.
Labour claims to represent the 'man in the street' but is totally out-of-touch with them.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/10/starmer-working-class-voters-labour-leader-brexit