Dear Gary

Rodneyfernsfeet said:
We're so sorry
Please come back
Lots of love
BBC
Click to expand...
Apparently Tim Davie has been bombarding Lineker with gifts of flowers and teddy bears, and repeatedly drunk texting him begging for forgiveness and promising things will be different if Lineker gives him another chance. Embarrassing stuff - get a grip, man.
 
Lozfox1978 said:
I couldn’t give a fuck if he never appears on TV again. Only asset he has is his support of City otherwise he is a complete prick. I’ve never enjoyed watching MOTD more than I have this weekend. Totally refreshin.
Click to expand...
Fair point, if he wasn't a Leicester lad and hadn't helped us out when we were in the shit we'd have a totally different viiwpoint
 
He has eight million 'followers'. Who presumably value his opinions.
Lovely to see the braindead right squirming on the wrong side of history...
 
I think you're missing the point Oadlad
As a publicly funded organisation the BBC can not be seen the be taking sides and this put them in a difficult position particularly the comparison to 1930's Germany
Whilst his compassion for the people who have been displaced is great to see (and the support from the other personalities) it might be wise to consider the feelings of the people who are directly affected with some compassion as well.
As for his followers if I understand correctly there were quite a few who didn't agree with his view of things
 
What? said:
I think you're missing the point Oadlad
As a publicly funded organisation the BBC can not be seen the be taking sides and this put them in a difficult position particularly the comparison to 1930's Germany
Whilst his compassion for the people who have been displaced is great to see (and the support from the other personalities) it might be wise to consider the feelings of the people who are directly affected with some compassion as well.
As for his followers if I understand correctly there were quite a few who didn't agree with his view of things
Click to expand...
Why didn't alan sugar get terminated from The Apprentice when he said to vote tory to keep corbyn out?
The point here is the hypocrisy of saying "we must not be biased", and then showing bias when commentary goes against the official govt line!
The Tory hold over the national broadcaster is not 'being unbiased' it's state controlled media.
Even under shitbag Thatcher people like Robin Day were allowed to criticize mp's and policy. He never got fired when he called john nott "a transient, here-today and, if I may say so, gone-tomorrow politician" and the guy walked out of an interview.
 
Tuz_Not_Tuzz said:
Why didn't alan sugar get terminated from The Apprentice when he said to vote tory to keep corbyn out?
The point here is the hypocrisy of saying "we must not be biased", and then showing bias when commentary goes against the official govt line!
The Tory hold over the national broadcaster is not 'being unbiased' it's state controlled media.
Even under shitbag Thatcher people like Robin Day were allowed to criticize mp's and policy. He never got fired when he called john nott "a transient, here-today and, if I may say so, gone-tomorrow politician" and the guy walked out of an interview.
Click to expand...
Gary Lineker is not Robin Day
 
Tuz_Not_Tuzz said:
Why didn't alan sugar get terminated from The Apprentice when he said to vote tory to keep corbyn out?
The point here is the hypocrisy of saying "we must not be biased", and then showing bias when commentary goes against the official govt line!
The Tory hold over the national broadcaster is not 'being unbiased' it's state controlled media.
Even under shitbag Thatcher people like Robin Day were allowed to criticize mp's and policy. He never got fired when he called john nott "a transient, here-today and, if I may say so, gone-tomorrow politician" and the guy walked out of an interview.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure the argument that celebrity A is being a twat so it’s OK for celebrity B to be one as well is sound. Your second point doesn’t make sense simply because the BBC has to remain as far as possible unbiased and that applies to all employees because it is financed by the license fee
The left think the BBC is biased for the right, the right think otherwise so it isn’t doing too much wrong, your state controlled media comment is just silly
Robin Day was paid to report on politics and back then there was no such thing as social media
 
HughJanus said:
I’m not sure the argument that celebrity A is being a twat so it’s OK for celebrity B to be one as well is sound. Your second point doesn’t make sense simply because the BBC has to remain as far as possible unbiased and that applies to all employees because it is financed by the license fee
The left think the BBC is biased for the right, the right think otherwise so it isn’t doing too much wrong, your state controlled media comment is just silly
Robin Day was paid to report on politics and back then there was no such thing as social media
Click to expand...
err, i'm not saying it's 'ok'. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the 'unbiased reporting' policy.
as for your second 'point' like pen4's, what's that got to do with it? they are both employees with public facing personas, either full time or contracted. in the case of day he did it on bbc time not for example in a newspaper column (the then equivalent of social media, but thanks for pretending it's ok because there wasn't anything like it back then) which could be argued is even more egregious, but nothing was done, because the sensible point to be made is people are entitled to criticize a govt policy without losing their jobs or being suspended for it
 
Tuz_Not_Tuzz said:
err, i'm not saying it's 'ok'. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the unbiased policy.
as for your second 'point' like pen4's, what's that got to do with it? they are both employees with public facing personas, either full time or contracted. in the case of day he did it on bbc time not for example in a newspaper column (the then equivalent of social media, but thanks for pretending it's ok because there wasn't anything like it back then) which could be argued is even more egregious, but nothing was done, because the sensible point to be made is people are entitled to criticize a govt policy without losing their jobs or being suspended for it
Click to expand...
Give it up.you are just so far out of your depth.

Read some history and maybe you will get it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top