Any thoughts on Gary Lineker’s tweets?

[Vinnym]

Glad it’s been sorted, been sick to death hearing about it.

 

[dangie]

The only positive thing which came from this, unfortunately only temporary, was the absence of aftermatch pundits on MOTD.

 

[jon0844]

The only positive thing which came from this, unfortunately only temporary, was the absence of aftermatch pundits on MOTD.

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 people can then talk about the show the next day/back at work, or online.

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.

 

[MikeWM]

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.

 

[Tetchytyke]

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.

This is pretty much how I see it too, although I do agree with his underlying point.

The language used by many on the outer-right to describe refugees and asylum seekers, and migrants more generally, is horrendous. It is nasty and it is dehumanising. Asylum seekers become “illegals”, a small number of migrants become an “invasion” and a “swarm”, Katie Hopkins in Britain’s most-read newspaper got to call them “cockroaches” and celebrate children drowning in the Med.

Now clearly what was being said in 30s Germany was much much worse than any of that, and it’s a lazy comparison. And a comparison that doesn’t really help anyone. But one can see the parallels.

 

[nw1]

I will bow out from this one (apart from to reply to any further posts) now that Gary Lineker's been reinstated, but I will say that it was, in fact, in my view, an important issue. It seems likely that action was taken against Lineker due to some kind of Tory pressure, perhaps by right-wing backbenchers, perhaps by the chairman, perhaps by someone else. Who knows.

Also the immigration issue is a serious one and one of the defining features of Britain since 2016 is an increasingly harsh line towards immigration, and some disturbing right-wing (but in no way comparable to 1930s Germany) attitudes towards immigration and immigrants.

The action taken against Lineker was inconsistent with the lack of action taken against some other individuals who present BBC shows.

Yes, 1930s Germany is never a good idea to bring up in political arguments, for obvious reasons, and he could have said something more reasoned and less hot-headed. But he is not, in any way, someone who is insensitive to the horrors of Nazi Germany. Overall though, on the balance of things, due to the serious concerns about inconsistency and potential right-wing influence, I have been firmly on the side of Lineker.

And I admire the likes of Shearer and Wright for coming out in support of him.

I will also say that it is telling how a lot of people are attacking him for his wealth. Many of the right-wingers doing this come out with phrases such as "the politics of envy" when the left attack "their kind" of wealthy people, such as CEOs of privatised water companies or multinational oil companies. 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.

 

[dosxuk]

At least they've got this sorted before half of BBC News goes on strike on Wednesday for budget day to protest the closure of various posts across the country.

 

[DustyBin]

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 completely agree. It would have been very easy for me to side with the BBC over this as I don’t particularly like Lineker’s politics, and I don’t actually think he should have said what he said, but I’m pleased to have taken a step back and focused on the real issue. The fact that a group of people with such diverse political views have (largely) agreed over this says a lot really!

 

[Runningaround]

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.

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.

The same people can then talk about the show the next day/back at work, or online.

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.
No thanks please let Colin from accounts try and form his own view points instead of cloning Kevin Kilbane in trying to hard to join in.

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.

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.
Who watches the hours long build up to games with Jamie Carragher and Gary Neville. MOTD is either as dull as it's expert pundits or trying to make themselves the centre of attention.
The most off putting part of TV games is the endless BS.

 

[Fleetmaster]

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.

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.

.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.

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).

For it is that which has been a curiosity in all this. Lineker's complete and total silence regarding what he was thinking when he made those Tweets (and it could be quite possible he wasn't thinking at all) or any specifics regarding why he thought he was entitled to make them. His human rights? His contract? His status as a freelancer? His lawyer's reading of the so called Lineker clause.

No word at all. So much for transparency and trust. He has throughout this entire episode, had the look and feel of someone trying to protect his own interests, and not those of the BBC.

This is why it matters. As is so often said in football, the elite are the role models.

Some role model. Tax avoider and now loophole exploiter.

 

[jon0844]

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.

 

[GusB]

He's a literal tax avoider, which impacts everyone but the well off.

Have you seen his tax returns first-hand?

Most people sadly aren't educated enough to appreciate the value of the BBC.

Snobbery of the highest order!

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).

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.

You may not agree with then dissenting voices, but 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.

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.

 

[43096]

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.

The BBC managed to go through the pandemic without challenging the group think of SAGE. Impartial? Yeah right. Just saying.

 

[dangie]

Have you seen his tax returns first-hand?

No but a bloke down the pub says he has…..

 

[Fleetmaster]

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.

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 income

www.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.

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.

I'm sure if you thought about that for half a second, you'd appreciate your mistake.

Let me help you out.

Impartiality is about presenting all views deemed suitable for broadcast, in proportion to their evident support.

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.

Unfortunately still, because some fool (Tony Blair) thought being the only EU country not to apply the (entirely legal) initial limit on free movement from newly accepted EU member states, the BNP did relatively well for a far right party in the UK. Not as well as the French far right these days, but I note still nobody here wants to acknowledge that little fly in the ointment in this whole Tories=Nazis nonsensical historical revisionism.

After consulting lawyers, the BBC had to admit that their hands were tied, this level of electoral support merits being given a platform on the broadcaster legally required to ensure impartiality. They got their one and only spot on QT. The BBC got **** from all sides as usual.

Impartiality was defended, the BNP's answers failed to convince the vast majority of people who had not voted for them that they were worthy of support. People were informed (about what a bunch of jokers the BNP really are), educated (about the consequences of voting for far right parties) an even a little entertained.

Did the left sit back and reflect on what could have happened, had they got their way and cancelled a legitimate political party? No, they did not. And here we are, with nobody on that side of the aisle having any clue it seems, that banning political parties, is what the Nazis did, as early as 1933.

Nor perhaps do they have any clue that these risible attempts by the left to shut down legitimate debate, out of sheer snobbery one suspects, were defining events in the lead up to and ultimate loss of the Brexit referendum.

Professor Lineker fails his students, yet again.

 

[GusB]

I'm sure if you thought about that for half a second, you'd appreciate your mistake.

Let me help you out.

Could you be any more condescending?

Impartiality is about presenting all views deemed suitable for broadcast, in proportion to their evident support.

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.

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.

You've no idea when I was born. Stop being so patronising.

 

[jon0844]

"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.

Indeed, and I expect HMRC is trying to do something similar as in the case of Uber and others - where people were exclusively working for Uber but not employees, and not given things like annual leave or sick pay etc.

However, I think it seems like HMRC may be wrong on this and lose as there are many scenarios where you simply have to be freelance because you need the freedom to work for other people. Gary Lineker is clearly happy to be freelance and won't get annual leave, sick pay or anything like that. He'll have to do his own taxes etc.

So, clearly until there's any judgement made, you cannot say he's a tax avoider.

 

[87electric]

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 income

www.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.

And the same Guardian article explains that HMRC also went after broadcasters Lorraine Kelly and Kaye Adams. Both of these won on their appeals.

 

[dangie]

To save beginning another thread, but on a similar vein:

‘BBC Question Time host Fiona Bruce says she will step back from her role as an ambassador for the domestic violence charity Refuge, following a comment she made on air about Stanley Johnson.’

Fiona Bruce to step back from Refuge after 'storm' over Stanley Johnson remark on Question Time

It follows a "social media storm" over a remark the Question Time host made about Stanley Johnson.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Falcon1200]

People watch MOTD because they want to hear the commentary and get involved with the debates after each game.

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.

 

[Edsmith]

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.

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.

As for pundits generally, they're ok perhaps during the World Cup but I don't see the need for them on highlights shows just to tell us the obvious, even commentators I think we can do without

 

[102 fan]

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, and it will give weight to those demanding the licence fee be abolished.

 

[dangie]

The newspapers are desperate to keep the BBC/Lineker story going. Keeping the pot stirred with the rhetoric.

Newspaper headlines: 'Pressure on BBC bosses' and 'SVB tremors spread'

Criticism for the handling of the Gary Lineker row and the collapse of a US bank lead the papers.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[jon0844]

I get that not everyone will like the presenters, but surely those into football want a show with some substance and not just the clips you can view all over the place?

Many people will watch on demand, or record it to watch in the morning, so will fast forward the bits they don't care about. I certainly don't watch every single match. Indeed, I don't even watch every episode if my team didn't play.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

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...

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.

 

[brad465]

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).

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.

If there is one thing I'd advise the BBC to do, it's to learn this quote: "If someone say's it's raining, and another person says it's dry, the job of a journalist is not the cite both, it's to look out of the [expletive] window and see who is correct."

 

[102 fan]

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.

Or we have a repeat of the last week with a similar outcome.

 

[MikeWM]

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).

Why wouldn't it work here? I see no contradiction to say that Lineker should be entitled to his personal opinion - however wrong I think it may be - and that it is ok for him to express that opinion via mechanisms other than the BBC, as long as it doesn't interfere with his BBC work. I'd agree that political commentators etc. on the BBC should appear to be politically neutral (though there is much debate over whether they actually do so), but I see no need for a football expert commenting on football to be neutral on other issues.

I'd add that after the last three covid years it is *very* hard to see the BBC as anything but 'state tv parroting state propaganda', but I'd partly agree that it is a little more subtle than that - the BBC in my opinion is very much the voice of the *establishment*, which may or may not align with the specific policies of the current government.

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.

 

[cb a1]

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.

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.

 

[Tetchytyke]

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.

HMRC’s track record on winning these tribunals is pretty poor, all things considered.

I also think he’s paid the tax on account, so they’re actually arguing about whether he should get a tax rebate.

If I were a cynic I’d definitely contrast how HMRC went after Lineker compared to how they gave a sweetheart deal to Zahawi.

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.

The licence fee is payable if you watch live TV from any broadcaster- including live shows on streaming services (such as live sport on Amazon Prime) or watch the iPlayer.

Streaming services showing pre-recorded TV don’t require a licence, except the iPlayer.