Gary Lineker wades into BBC chairman row: ‘Not now, not ever’

HAYSIE

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/now-gary-lineker-wades-bbc-113940602.html

HAYSIE

Lineker told to ‘stick to selling junk food' with anger erupting at BBC star's interfering


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/lineker-told-to-stick-to-selling-junk-food-with-anger-erupting-at-bbc-star-s-interfering/ar-AA1atOWh?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=3cdad7e7641c47ed88e1ac55545fc394&ei=79

Essexphil

Completely correct.

I can see scenarios where the Govt of the day might veto a particular person. But never insist that the BBC Board select from a shortlist of 1.

Just as true for the next Labour Government than this current bunch.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

Completely correct.

I can see scenarios where the Govt of the day might veto a particular person. But never insist that the BBC Board select from a shortlist of 1.

Just as true for the next Labour Government than this current bunch.

Rather pointless having an appointment panel.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

Completely correct.

I can see scenarios where the Govt of the day might veto a particular person. But never insist that the BBC Board select from a shortlist of 1.

Just as true for the next Labour Government than this current bunch.

In order to disagree with Mr Linekers point of view, wouldnt you have to jusrify the appointment of Richard Sharp?
If that was possible he probably wouldnt have resigned.

HENDRIK62

HAYSIE said:

Lineker told to ‘stick to selling junk food' with anger erupting at BBC star's interfering


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/lineker-told-to-stick-to-selling-junk-food-with-anger-erupting-at-bbc-star-s-interfering/ar-AA1atOWh?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=3cdad7e7641c47ed88e1ac55545fc394&ei=79

As a rule of thumb I disagree with anything that 30p Lee says, and this will continue, I have no issue with anyone talking about politics.

It annoys the **** out of me when actors or sportspeople are vilified for having political views, why shouldn't they?

HAYSIE

Essexphil

I appreciate that the headline writers of the Mail are both incredibly right-wing, and incredibly thick.

But even people that thick should be able to appreciate this fundamental difference.

There are political opinions, and party political opinions. One is fine, the other not while working for the BBC.

So-to give this example-it is absolutely fine for anyone (including Lineker) to say that the BBC Chairman should not be a politically-motivated appointment. That applies to The Cons, to Labour, and to the SNP/Monster Raving Loony Party.

I find it amusing that Newspapers (who are rivals of the BBC) feel free to give their opinions. And Conservative MPs (talking about how the BBC should be governed by the Govt) feel free to give theirs. While saying that it is unacceptable that one of the BBC's highest paid contractors should speak.

The BBC (and its employees/contractors) are there to provide opinion. Within guidelines, such as not showing bias against a Party. When the Tories lead with "30p Lee" you know they are unwilling to enter grown-up debate.

Simple question for the haters. When Labour win the next election, should they be able to dismiss the next Chairman and replace him/her with someone they like? Short answer. No.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

I appreciate that the headline writers of the Mail are both incredibly right-wing, and incredibly thick.

But even people that thick should be able to appreciate this fundamental difference.

There are political opinions, and party political opinions. One is fine, the other not while working for the BBC.

So-to give this example-it is absolutely fine for anyone (including Lineker) to say that the BBC Chairman should not be a politically-motivated appointment. That applies to The Cons, to Labour, and to the SNP/Monster Raving Loony Party.

I find it amusing that Newspapers (who are rivals of the BBC) feel free to give their opinions. And Conservative MPs (talking about how the BBC should be governed by the Govt) feel free to give theirs. While saying that it is unacceptable that one of the BBC's highest paid contractors should speak.

The BBC (and its employees/contractors) are there to provide opinion. Within guidelines, such as not showing bias against a Party. When the Tories lead with "30p Lee" you know they are unwilling to enter grown-up debate.

Simple question for the haters. When Labour win the next election, should they be able to dismiss the next Chairman and replace him/her with someone they like? Short answer. No.

Its The Express.

Essexphil

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

I appreciate that the headline writers of the Mail are both incredibly right-wing, and incredibly thick.

But even people that thick should be able to appreciate this fundamental difference.

There are political opinions, and party political opinions. One is fine, the other not while working for the BBC.

So-to give this example-it is absolutely fine for anyone (including Lineker) to say that the BBC Chairman should not be a politically-motivated appointment. That applies to The Cons, to Labour, and to the SNP/Monster Raving Loony Party.

I find it amusing that Newspapers (who are rivals of the BBC) feel free to give their opinions. And Conservative MPs (talking about how the BBC should be governed by the Govt) feel free to give theirs. While saying that it is unacceptable that one of the BBC's highest paid contractors should speak.

The BBC (and its employees/contractors) are there to provide opinion. Within guidelines, such as not showing bias against a Party. When the Tories lead with "30p Lee" you know they are unwilling to enter grown-up debate.

Simple question for the haters. When Labour win the next election, should they be able to dismiss the next Chairman and replace him/her with someone they like? Short answer. No.

Its The Express.

Not a lot of difference. Back half of the Mail is worth reading. Unlike the Express.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

I appreciate that the headline writers of the Mail are both incredibly right-wing, and incredibly thick.

But even people that thick should be able to appreciate this fundamental difference.

There are political opinions, and party political opinions. One is fine, the other not while working for the BBC.

So-to give this example-it is absolutely fine for anyone (including Lineker) to say that the BBC Chairman should not be a politically-motivated appointment. That applies to The Cons, to Labour, and to the SNP/Monster Raving Loony Party.

I find it amusing that Newspapers (who are rivals of the BBC) feel free to give their opinions. And Conservative MPs (talking about how the BBC should be governed by the Govt) feel free to give theirs. While saying that it is unacceptable that one of the BBC's highest paid contractors should speak.

The BBC (and its employees/contractors) are there to provide opinion. Within guidelines, such as not showing bias against a Party. When the Tories lead with "30p Lee" you know they are unwilling to enter grown-up debate.

Simple question for the haters. When Labour win the next election, should they be able to dismiss the next Chairman and replace him/her with someone they like? Short answer. No.

30p Lee surely cant last much longer?

Essexphil

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

I appreciate that the headline writers of the Mail are both incredibly right-wing, and incredibly thick.

But even people that thick should be able to appreciate this fundamental difference.

There are political opinions, and party political opinions. One is fine, the other not while working for the BBC.

So-to give this example-it is absolutely fine for anyone (including Lineker) to say that the BBC Chairman should not be a politically-motivated appointment. That applies to The Cons, to Labour, and to the SNP/Monster Raving Loony Party.

I find it amusing that Newspapers (who are rivals of the BBC) feel free to give their opinions. And Conservative MPs (talking about how the BBC should be governed by the Govt) feel free to give theirs. While saying that it is unacceptable that one of the BBC's highest paid contractors should speak.

The BBC (and its employees/contractors) are there to provide opinion. Within guidelines, such as not showing bias against a Party. When the Tories lead with "30p Lee" you know they are unwilling to enter grown-up debate.

Simple question for the haters. When Labour win the next election, should they be able to dismiss the next Chairman and replace him/her with someone they like? Short answer. No.

30p Lee surely cant last much longer?

Not necessarily. Someone like him can be rather useful.

He is used as an attack dog. To provide controversial spin on the indefensible. And then to deflect the blame for that on to himself, and on to his comments rather than the actual issue, to evade scrutiny on the wider Party.

Vile creature. But useful, nonetheless.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

I appreciate that the headline writers of the Mail are both incredibly right-wing, and incredibly thick.

But even people that thick should be able to appreciate this fundamental difference.

There are political opinions, and party political opinions. One is fine, the other not while working for the BBC.

So-to give this example-it is absolutely fine for anyone (including Lineker) to say that the BBC Chairman should not be a politically-motivated appointment. That applies to The Cons, to Labour, and to the SNP/Monster Raving Loony Party.

I find it amusing that Newspapers (who are rivals of the BBC) feel free to give their opinions. And Conservative MPs (talking about how the BBC should be governed by the Govt) feel free to give theirs. While saying that it is unacceptable that one of the BBC's highest paid contractors should speak.

The BBC (and its employees/contractors) are there to provide opinion. Within guidelines, such as not showing bias against a Party. When the Tories lead with "30p Lee" you know they are unwilling to enter grown-up debate.

Simple question for the haters. When Labour win the next election, should they be able to dismiss the next Chairman and replace him/her with someone they like? Short answer. No.

30p Lee surely cant last much longer?

Not necessarily. Someone like him can be rather useful.

He is used as an attack dog. To provide controversial spin on the indefensible. And then to deflect the blame for that on to himself, and on to his comments rather than the actual issue, to evade scrutiny on the wider Party.

Vile creature. But useful, nonetheless.

I cant believe that he has anything but an adverse effect on the popularity of the Tory Party.

HAYSIE

HENDRIK62 said:

HAYSIE said:

Lineker told to ‘stick to selling junk food' with anger erupting at BBC star's interfering


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/lineker-told-to-stick-to-selling-junk-food-with-anger-erupting-at-bbc-star-s-interfering/ar-AA1atOWh?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=3cdad7e7641c47ed88e1ac55545fc394&ei=79

As a rule of thumb I disagree with anything that 30p Lee says, and this will continue, I have no issue with anyone talking about politics.

It annoys the **** out of me when actors or sportspeople are vilified for having political views, why shouldn't they?

Lee Anderson whines top cop treated him 'like an idiot' as he schooled him on the law


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/lee-anderson-whines-top-cop-treated-him-like-an-idiot-as-he-schooled-him-on-the-law/ar-AA1aAaCs?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=86fd6ccc2c5d4bd8a3eaeae20b396ca8&ei=21