Lineker

Reading some of the headlines (is there much to worry about in the world when the international headlines surround the loss of a "Match of the Day" presenter?) they are worded such that he broke BBC "guidelines" - not rules or laws but guidelines only. In which case he should have been quietly pulled to one side and some words whispered in his ears. Should not have resulted in any further action being taken immediately

Judging by the number of other presenters who declined to work over the week-end, I suspect that there are some fundamental issues at the BBC that need to be resolved. Maybe there is some form of gagging going on with concerns bubbling along under the surface, and this opportunity has now presented itself to allow them to be voiced (in private first.....)

Apply the same to the other news outlets - Sky were wringing their hands in glee about it all weekend. No doubt the newspapers front pages are full of it too.

Bash the BBC by all means but at least mention that the majority alternatives are under the control of single individuals who can be fickle (I'm looking at you, Mr Murdoch) depending on who they like the most/least.

Lineker is in the wrong otherwise we open up reporters giving their Personal opinion on everything, no problems on commercial channels but for everyone who thinks Gary is brave for airing his views theres the other side who think we should be acting like Greece and that's not representing their views which they pay handsomely for.

If you take the big money expect to have your wings clipped and if you don't like it go to Sky. Where funnily enough we will remember how boring Gary is and that he's not worth his rather massive BBC salary, same goes for Shearer and Wright.

Plus grenade throwing is simple and a bore. Its far too easy to criticise especially on immigration as its an impossible subject that nobody has a clue how to fix. If Lineker hats to start homing people and doing some genuine philanthropy then I'm all ears but he seems to want to do the opposite and hold money away from the government.

I agree. We’re all let down by the low standard of journalism across the board in the country.

This is where I am. The place I live, the industry I work in, the lifestyle I lead I can’t pretend to be a Labour voter by any stretch of the imagination and it would be a vote wasted around this way. However I can’t begin to vote for either our Conservative candidate (who is a Brexiteer) or for the current party ethos as a whole. The yellow alternative always fares well enough but they’re never going to appeal to the nation as a whole whilst the “them” v “us” argument rages to create a two party state of affairs.

It is all highly depressing, and as people have said, good journalism is the loser. Initially I thought this was a storm in a teacup, but there is an issue with the BBC and the reason why it's employees need to be held to different standards to other people in the public eye. It's effectively a public sector organisation and its emplyees have that political bent, yet its publicly funded and needs to represent the country fairly. It does spend a lot of time (and our money) virtue signallying and promoting nonsensical stories, and - while it has got better - shows blatant political bias. Going by the BBC's coverage you would think Labour wins a massive landslide - in Scotland and England/Wales - in every election. And the Brexit coverage made that bias clearer than anything. From their coverage it would have been a massive remain result, with just a few elderly racists crying into their real ale, and yet that's not what we got, is it? The last general election was supposed to be much closer as well, and one of the Tory majorities was not supposed to happen at all - they are way, way out on a lot of their coverage.

I still go to them for much of my news, from laziness mainly - they are the default choice, not even a choice if you will, and need to be treated as such.

And I say that as someone who kind of agrees with that he said, if not the hackneyed linking to Nazi Germany (why does Stalin never get the rap with these lefties)? The small boats thing needs sorting for their own safety (imagine being in one today?) but we need as a nation to get a grip of what's important, and humanity in general. In most other countries people can just walk across the border, we're not devoid of responsibility because of a bit of sea.

I thought his words relating to 1930s Germany were a reminder of how the propaganda started the steamroller as opposed to a trivialisation of the Holocaust. The whole NSDA issue started out with media and reporting; they didn’t just build Dachau (the first permanent camp) and say “here it is: the future.”

The press decided he’d trivialised history and indeed started using the word “Nazi” in relation to the story.

I don't think you can lay these variances at the feet of the BBC.

All the pollsters got them completely wrong, including 2 that are owned by Tory grandees (Zahawi and Lord Ashcroft).

In addition I think the BBC are generally (not all the time but on an average) fairly neutral as evidenced by the fact that both the left and right complain about the bias displayed in favour of the other side.


I've been keeping an eye on the Fox News legal strife in the US - they're being sued by at least one of the voting machine companies for promoting the Trumpian view that the election was stolen and the machines were hacked to favour the Democrats.
If you want to see confirmation bias in action just have a look at what their hosts were saying in late 2020 (and compare it with what those same people were saying in private). It's clear that they simply repeated what they thought their viewers wanted to hear.
Also bear in mind that Fox News is owned by Murdoch - not a man known for sitting back and not interfering in the direction of travel of his media outlets and those it supports.

Shirley a system whereby the applicants MUST apply in their country of origin or be denied any future right to apply. Regardless of which option box they tick.

Immigration is clearly something we have had for more than a few wet weekends but perhaps in future the tourist (Economic) types have to have more to offer than wanting to live here. Refugee's fine, get them safe etc, who could deny the duty to safegurd the persecuted?

This also contains the other Elephant in the room, the travelers, Irish in particular but wth, equal opportunities and all that.

In this particular instance, the cause of the problems with healthcare availability (of which there are many) are irrelevant.

There is finite level of service (based on funding and available heads) and bringing in additional dependents is going to further degrade the delivery for all. Aside from the volume of additional patients, incremental spending to house and feed these people means even less money to secure more staff or to make available to offer wage increases for nurses and doctors.

Tough choices have to be made, but thankfully the overpaid and undertaxed football prat is full of great ideas and insights.

Are they? They would need to be earning a substantial wage as a single person before they become a net contributor - if they then bring family and have to draw on healthcare, maternity services, schooling, childcare etc. then they will remain a net drain on the economy.

I'm not saying we don't need migrants but the idea often put forward that they generally pay for themselves is far more nuanced than that. 

Interesting? Never thought of a working single person not being a Net Contributor. Even more so as immigrants tend to be younger and therefore draw less from Society. I guess its impossible to work out but at roughly what wage do you become a contributor rather then a burden?