The only positive thing which came from this, unfortunately only temporary, was the absence of aftermatch pundits on MOTD.
This is pretty much how I see it too, although I do agree with his underlying point.I agree that drawing comparisons to 1930s Germany is often lazy, though I also understand the temptation to do so, given it is one historical analogy that almost everyone believes they understand (note I said *believes*. That doesn't mean that they do necessarily understand it!) So while I strongly disagree with Lineker's point, I do understand why he made it in the way that he did.
Well, that fired off a fairly interesting debate about free speech, which is a very important topic right now.
That said, I can't imagine anyone will learn much from it. Many on the 'left' will still be delighted when someone on the 'right' gets into trouble for exercising free speech, and vice versa. As was pointed out many posts back, we really need to frame these things as authoritarian vs libertarian, rather than the increasingly tired and narrow left/right paradigm.
I don't. I watch it on rewind or repeat and fast forward the ''expert evaluation'' I don't agree with the reason, but it was quite refreshing to watch highlights and think for myself what was offside or not and not.If you want to only see goals, just use YouTube with the sound off - or indeed iPlayer for games they can show.
People watch MOTD because they want to hear the commentary and get involved with the debates after each game. Without that, there's no show and MOTD on Saturday was pretty much the perfect example of why it wouldn't be entertaining for most people.
The same who live of the unbiased view points of ex-Newcastle United, Liverpool and Leicester City players. The amateur blogging pundit who've slipped onto Sky Sports News to fill in 10 mins.The same people can then talk about the show the next day/back at work, or online.
Its not that popular it's just highlights of football after the pub, goals and a few missed chances will do me. Sky have cut it's Sunday morning pundit led show with Chris Kamara.Even if everyone had walked out, the eventual replacements would still keep the same format. It's a popular and winning formula, and the same formula used for any other sport.
He's a literal tax avoider, which impacts everyone but the well off. As such, he is a curious choice of moral touchstone for the left, since the tax he isn't paying because of his freelance status, could be going on public services.Again, there is something distinctly inconsistent about this, particularly when one considers that action/inaction by Gary Lineker has not led to any degradation in their quality of life.
That wouldn't work here..As was pointed out many posts back, we really need to frame these things as authoritarian vs libertarian, rather than the increasingly tired and narrow left/right paradigm.
Have you seen his tax returns first-hand?He's a literal tax avoider, which impacts everyone but the well off.
Snobbery of the highest order!Most people sadly aren't educated enough to appreciate the value of the BBC.
Yes, the BBC is precious. The chairman of the BBC and the Director General can always find work elsewhere, but we would never get back that which serves us all if it becomes obvious that the rules don't apply to them for whatever reason.The BBC is precious. Lineker's rights pale into insignificance in comparison, since he can always find work elsewhere, but we would never get back that which serves us all, if it becomes obvious to all that the rules don't apply to Lineker for reasons that make no sense at all (up to and including all those who argue he should get a free pass because others allegedly have).
The BBC managed to go through the pandemic without challenging the group think of SAGE. Impartial? Yeah right. Just saying.If the BBC becomes nothing but a mouthpiece for a government that's hell-bent on restricting the right to strike, protest and vote and doesn't challenge it, then the future is rather bleak for all of us.
No but a bloke down the pub says he has…..Have you seen his tax returns first-hand?
It's not a legal requirement, and if anything, he surely has to be classed as an employee, for tax purposes.....Gary Lineker works for other broadcasters, so surely he has to be freelance? I freelance - does that make me a tax avoider?
Loads of people I've worked with over the years are now freelance, or contracted by a publisher instead of being a full-time employee. I am not sure where you've been the last five or ten years, but it's becoming increasingly common in the media in general.
I'm sure if you thought about that for half a second, you'd appreciate your mistake.impartiality means providing a level platform for all points of view. It doesn't mean shutting someone down because you don't like what they're saying.
Could you be any more condescending?I'm sure if you thought about that for half a second, you'd appreciate your mistake.
Let me help you out.
What do you mean by "evident support"? If you had stopped at "Impartiality if about presenting all views deemed suitable for broadcast", I'd be agreeing with you. In this case you clearly don't agree with Lineker's point of view, therefore you don't think it's suitable for broadcast.Impartiality is about presenting all views deemed suitable for broadcast, in proportion to their evident support.
You've no idea when I was born. Stop being so patronising.Back in the day, maybe before you were even born, the left wanted to bar the far right BNP from Question Time, as is their way (silencing those they disagree with). Unfortunately for them, we have laws in this country that protect a person's right to start a political party, and for others to vote for it.
"The Match Of The Day host was told by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) that he should have been classed as an employee of the BBC and BT Sport for his presenting duties, rather than as a freelancer."
It's a matter for the courts now.
And the same Guardian article explains that HMRC also went after broadcasters Lorraine Kelly and Kaye Adams. Both of these won on their appeals.It's not a legal requirement, and if anything, he surely has to be classed as an employee, for tax purposes.....
Gary Lineker’s lawyers say HMRC tax inquiry ‘looking in the wrong place’
HMRC is pursuing the Match of the Day host for £4.9m that it said should have been paid on incomewww.theguardian.com
"The Match Of The Day host was told by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) that he should have been classed as an employee of the BBC and BT Sport for his presenting duties, rather than as a freelancer."
It's a matter for the courts now.
People watch MOTD because they want to hear the commentary and get involved with the debates after each game.
Likewise I'm not interested in what these overpaid pundits have got to say and I find Alan Shearer particularly boring and far more interesting opinions are available on football phone ins or online.I watch MOTD to see the football and hear the commentary! I am not especially interested in hearing managers/players saying after the game how great/poorly they done, or the pundits moaning about the referees or explaining why Player A should have been 6 inches closer to Player B. But I too am glad the matter has been resolved (for now) and normal service resumed.
What will be interesting to know, if we ever do, is what agreement, if any, there was between the BBC and Mr Linker regarding his social media postings before GaryGate, and what agreement there is now.
Not sure I agree. Reckon that Lineker is more likely now to "toe the line" as he'll have been warned that any repetition of what happened last week is now much more likely to see his remunerative contract summarily terminated.I do think the BBC have made a rod for their backs. Lineker will feel emboldened, and feel he can now say much more on twitter...
We're better off with the BBC than without, but it really needs reform. Aside from the recent issue of political appointments in it, for a long time it has seemingly tried to take impartiality too far by giving more weighting to groups than their representation in society, and also trying to give voices to those pedalling factually incorrect stuff to "balance" against factual stuff. We saw this with Fiona Bruce's remarks about domestic violence on Thursday's Question Time, which has now led to her stepping down from Refuge, albeit the Lineker affair largely overshadowed it.That wouldn't work here.
It is neither authoritarian or libertarian to believe it is a common good to have a state funded broadcaster that is committed to neutrality. Most people sadly aren't educated enough to appreciate the value of the BBC. They have no clue that the rest of the world either swings authoritarian (state tv parroting state propaganda) or libertarian (commercial media, freedom of speech rules all, media divided into their respective tribes, no common ground).
The BBC is precious. Lineker's rights pale into insignificance in comparison, since he can always find work elsewhere, but we would never get back that which serves us all, if it becomes obvious to all that the rules don't apply to Lineker for reasons that make no sense at all (up to and including all those who argue he should get a free pass because others allegedly have).
Or we have a repeat of the last week with a similar outcome.Not sure I agree. Reckon that Lineker is more likely now to "toe the line" as he'll have been warned that any repetition of what happened last week is now much more likely to see his remunerative contract summarily terminated.
That wouldn't work here.
It is neither authoritarian or libertarian to believe it is a common good to have a state funded broadcaster that is committed to neutrality. Most people sadly aren't educated enough to appreciate the value of the BBC. They have no clue that the rest of the world either swings authoritarian (state tv parroting state propaganda) or libertarian (commercial media, freedom of speech rules all, media divided into their respective tribes, no common ground).
If you don't watch its output then why do you pay the TV licence fee?But personally I don't care less about the BBC anymore, I watch nothing of its output, and I'd be quite pleased to have £159 a year to spend on something I actually use. To me that is like having to pay Waitrose an annual fee even though I choose to only shop at Tesco and Sainsburys, it is really quite bizarre.
The Match Of The Day host was told by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) that he should have been classed as an employee of the BBC and BT Sport for his presenting duties, rather than as a freelancer."
It's a matter for the courts now.
If you don't watch its output then why do you pay the TV licence fee?
I didn't watch BBC TV for a number of years and didn't pay the licence fee.