Gary Lineker

Clarkson is right. You can't sack someone for an opinion.[/QUOTE]
Wanna bet.? Go see your gaffer on Monday & tell him in your opinion he’s a ****.
It worked for me, once upon a yonks back..

 

I think this is what's going to happen eventually anyway as Youtube/social media takes over. 1.3 million a year for presenting a show every saturday for an hour and half for 9 months surely can't be justified, especially as it's funded by the BBC & more & more people refusing to pay their TV license anyway.

In saying that, despite obscene amounts of money, I hope the BBC don't use that as a stick to beat him with, an excuse to get rid if viewing figures don't plummet. If they do eventually get rid of presenters, do it for 'right' reasons, and not because some bloke has an opinion someone else doesn't like. It's a very, very scary thought.

 

No commentators now.

 

Mathematics makes sense and numbs the pain of those with rational thought. Do we need presenters and pundits to tell us what we've watched?

 

Scratch my last post. Was trying to be all confuscious says and made a bolloc k s off it. Night all.

 

Excellent!

 

Don’t fall for the hype. Tory sympathisers are keeping this Linekar side show in the news so that everyone is talking about him and not the abhorrent new policy he was referring to.

 

It’s a pity bravema

 

I think this whole area is far from clear cut. I think there is a World of difference between the Lineker incident and the example above of Attenborough.
Firstly, Attenborough has spent decades as an expert on nature and the conservation and regarded as one of the World's most knowledgeable people regarding environmental issues.
Gary Lineker is an ex-footballer, personality and sports pundit and presenter expressing a personal opinion.
This is where it becomes more complex.
Everyone has the right to express an opinion. There are obvious limits to how far people can go. Regardless whether you side with GL or not, (personally I agree with him that the proposed law goes way too far but using emotive comparisons with like Nazism and the language of 30s Germany is OTT, is inflammatory and provocative) and therein lies the problem.
Lineker is, like you and I, entitled to freedom to express his views but, unlike you and I has a huge following and therefore has become one of those people who can be regarded as an 'influencer'. That means they have a greater responsibility when posting opinions and personal views, regardless of whether they are via official Site or personal account like Twitter especially when they are merely opinions not backed up by specialist knowledge ( e.g. the Attenborough example). In general the pro/anti Lineker support sides seem split more on pro/anti Government lines than the views on the BBC's decision to suspense him. Contrast this with people views regarding consequences of someone like Clarkson posts.
In summary Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities especially when using social media and when you are in the privileged position of having a huge following.

 

This all looked to have been put to bed on Thursday. Then, lo and behold, yesterday it kicks up again and Lineker is effectively suspended. You would have to be naive not to think that people have been 'leaned on'. And with a Tory-loving Chairman it will have been fairly easy for the government to get it's way. Now that really is like 1930's Germany. Or present-day Russia or China.

 

Maybe so, but it's great to see workers sticking together rather than bowing down to the Tories.

 

I can't ever see why the BBC is regarded as a left biased organisation and this just endorses my opinion further

 

Apart from the obvious that the things said by Clarkson are not in any way shape or form even remotely similar to what Lineker has said with one being a personal attack on a woman and one being an attack on an illegal government policy the free speech thing is clear to me too.

Say what you want.
Your employer is free to end associations with you if they disagree with your views (within the law)
But here's the crucial part. the public is within their right to treat that employer as they wish.
If the public decide they want nothing to do with the company for the decision they made then that should be allowed too. Unfortunately the BBC is in a privileged position f being allowed to do and say anything they want no matter how corrupt and the law states the public just still pay for their services. It's wrong

 

What, even if it were true?

 

It now transpires that a new programme featuring Sir David 'Saving our wild isles' has been removed from the BBC main channels and will only be on the iplayer.

 

Seems they have cancelled MOTD totally now tonight

 

Probably for the best!

 

No I got it wrong.

Football focus cancelled not MOTD

 

Football focus now not airing and players asked not to do interviews with match of the day. PFA backing any player that faces club action for not doing media interviews