|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 11, 2023 14:27:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 11, 2023 14:31:46 GMT
You are being thick here. As already pointed out he did NOT use the BBC platform for his views. Fairsociety making things up again. 🙄 Not making things up, he used his status and influence and clout as a BBC employee to promote his political views.
Let's face it, if he was just like you ... andrewbrown .. no one would give a flying fuck what your political views, or for that matter, they wouldn't give a fuck full stop what your views were on any topic. The fact of the matter is Lineker tried to use and abuse his position at the BBC to influence his private 'social media' in to believing he was representing the BBC, which we know he wasn't.
He's not a BBC employee so if you'd actually cared to read the BBC Guidelines you'd know that unless the BBC got him to agree specific conditions when he re-signed again with them for a lower fee then he's broken no rules educate yourself: www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/individual-use-of-social-media#6whoiscoveredbythisguidanceOh and feel free to point out where you said the BBC should have removed Alan (Lord) Sugar for his numerous tweets. Just one example: |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 11, 2023 14:32:06 GMT
Nothing. If they work for BBC, they can resign and give a full throated vent to their opinions. They can also remain employed by the BBC and give their opinion in such a way that it isn't linked to the BBC. Anyway - that's my take. By implication, that means you believe the BBC can only be the mouthpiece of the state and have on its discussion programmes people from an approved list of vetted candidates who won't rock the boat.
Sounds more like policy from China, North Korea, or Russia...
No it doesn't. It means, if you work for the BBC and are a publicly recognisable figure, you have to keep a substantial part of your private opinions, to yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 11, 2023 14:36:28 GMT
By implication, that means you believe the BBC can only be the mouthpiece of the state and have on its discussion programmes people from an approved list of vetted candidates who won't rock the boat. Sounds more like policy from China, North Korea, or Russia...
No it doesn't. It means, if you work for the BBC and are a publicly recognisable figure, you have to keep a substantial part of your private opinions, to yourself. See See link given above, you're wrong as Alan Sugar has proved The position is if Tory politician Tim Davie doesn't like your views you cannot appear on the BBC. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 11, 2023 14:38:47 GMT
No it doesn't. It means, if you work for the BBC and are a publicly recognisable figure, you have to keep a substantial part of your private opinions, to yourself. See See link given above, you're wrong as Alan Sugar has proved The position is if Tory politician Tim Davie doesn't like your views you cannot appear on the BBC. I don't see how i can wrong about my own opinion or how any link can show my opinion to be wrong. Pat and I are discussing my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 11, 2023 14:42:05 GMT
Not going to argue your pedantry. Your belief and your subsequent statement are both wrong
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Mar 11, 2023 14:46:34 GMT
By implication, that means you believe the BBC can only be the mouthpiece of the state and have on its discussion programmes people from an approved list of vetted candidates who won't rock the boat.
Sounds more like policy from China, North Korea, or Russia...
No it doesn't. It means, if you work for the BBC and are a publicly recognisable figure, you have to keep a substantial part of your private opinions, to yourself. Define "substantial".
Can Chris Packham publicly urge state and local authority to U turn on development and habitat destruction. Or will he be reported to the Ofcom Stasi if overheard saying so in a pub or through a thin domestic wall.
Frankly, I think your views are unreasonable. I want to hear from knowledgeable (and sometimes idiotic) people with different views and experiences, and not be subject to state sanitised broadcasting...
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Mar 11, 2023 14:46:37 GMT
Nothing. If they work for BBC, they can resign and give a full throated vent to their opinions. They can also remain employed by the BBC and give their opinion in such a way that it isn't linked to the BBC. Anyway - that's my take. By implication, that means you believe the BBC can only be the mouthpiece of the state and have on its discussion programmes people from an approved list of vetted candidates who won't rock the boat.
Sounds more like policy from China, North Korea, or Russia...
Well on previous politics forums, people applied to go on Question Time yet they were only interested in getting Labour voices, the only ones that succeeded lied about it. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Mar 11, 2023 14:55:38 GMT
By implication, that means you believe the BBC can only be the mouthpiece of the state and have on its discussion programmes people from an approved list of vetted candidates who won't rock the boat.
Sounds more like policy from China, North Korea, or Russia...
Well on previous politics forums, people applied to go on Question Time yet they were only interested in getting Labour voices, the only ones that succeeded lied about it. I only have your report of their posts to go on for that. I can understand if QT's programme makers endeavour to make sure the audience isn't stuffed with one party's supporters. The BBC does publicise dates and venues in advance and I suspect applications are randomly checked, but I doubt the effort is to ensure a particular weighting...
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 11, 2023 15:17:24 GMT
No it doesn't. It means, if you work for the BBC and are a publicly recognisable figure, you have to keep a substantial part of your private opinions, to yourself. Define "substantial".
Can Chris Packham publicly urge state and local authority to U turn on development and habitat destruction. Or will he be reported to the Ofcom Stasi if overheard saying so in a pub or through a thin domestic wall.
Frankly, I think your views are unreasonable. I want to hear from knowledgeable (and sometimes idiotic) people with different views and experiences, and not be subject to state sanitised broadcasting...
Yes. Substantial part for many people. As a guideline, if you work for the BBC, have a high profile and are unsure that the vast majority of the UK public wouldn't be relatively happy to pay you a small amount to voice your opinion, then place this controversial commentary on an anonymous account. Nothing here stops the BBC from talking to people with varied views. I realise my position is going to feel like a blunt force trauma body shock for many. This would close down half the publicly funded luvie merry go around in a single stroke. You do realise private employees are often subject to similar pressures? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 11, 2023 15:24:49 GMT
Then why doesn't the BBC put that in its rules then? Why doesn't it enforce such extra rules requirements on government friendly Alan Sugar then?
Because it's become the Tory owned broadcaster perchance?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 11, 2023 15:36:47 GMT
Then why doesn't the BBC put that in its rules then? Why doesn't it enforce such extra rules requirements on government friendly Alan Sugar then? Because it's become the Tory owned broadcaster perchance? LOL. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 11, 2023 15:55:04 GMT
Maybe Dion( foot long) Dublin might be up for presenting MOTD. It’s one or two up from Homes under the hammer.👍 Dream on It was a joke Steve 🙄. Vinny Jones is being lined up for the job . 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 11, 2023 15:55:15 GMT
Then why doesn't the BBC put that in its rules then? Why doesn't it enforce such extra rules requirements on government friendly Alan Sugar then? Because it's become the Tory owned broadcaster perchance? LOL. So you can't answer the question Red. Well nothing new there then |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 11, 2023 15:57:14 GMT
It was a joke Steve 🙄. Vinny Jones is being lined up for the job . 👍 Nah Des UKIP Lynam with Matt le Tissier as pundit |
|
