BBC Impartiality

[Mourinhonista]

For how long did they stay with him? A year or two? I don't think so. Looks like a nice photo op, though.

I'm not advocating for taking more and more of them into the country. That's just fighting the symptom, not the problem. It's always been the rich guys or politicians who are doing the talking, they don't concern themselves with what could happen when lots of people who don't share the same morals join in. The average joe in the street has to live in the then changed environment.

 

[Dan_F]

The amount of people who’ve said that Lineker should take refugees into his own home. You love to see it.

 

[SilentWitness]

For how long did they stay with him? A year or two? I don't think so. Looks like a nice photo op, though.

I'm not advocating for taking more and more of them into the country. That's just fighting the symptom, not the problem. It's always been the rich guys or politicians who are doing the talking, they don't concern themselves with what could happen when lots of people who don't share the same morals join in. The average joe in the street has to live in the then changed environment.

They didn't need to stay with him for that long because contrary to opinion, refugees are shockingly capable of providing for themselves if given the opportunity and they aren't the useless pieces of shit the Tories would want you to believe.

 

[Tarrou]

For how long did they stay with him? A year or two? I don't think so. Looks like a nice photo op, though.

I'm not advocating for taking more and more of them into the country. That's just fighting the symptom, not the problem. It's always been the rich guys or politicians who are doing the talking, they don't concern themselves with what could happen when lots of people who don't share the same morals join in. The average joe in the street has to live in the then changed environment.

rule one when you say something dumb on the internet, always double down

 

[Jippy]

For how long did they stay with him? A year or two? I don't think so. Looks like a nice photo op, though.

I'm not advocating for taking more and more of them into the country. That's just fighting the symptom, not the problem. It's always been the rich guys or politicians who are doing the talking, they don't concern themselves with what could happen when lots of people who don't share the same morals join in. The average joe in the street has to live in the then changed environment.

Treating people humanely does not equate to the complete abolition of border controls.

 

[Berbasbullet]

Fairplay to Lineker.
Hopefully after some changes to the law have been made, he makes room in his house and properties and takes a few of them in.
We stand together and help each other out. Furthermore his kids shouldn't go to private school where they don't make contact, let them go to public schools. Can't have those gated communities, can we?! As most likely with guys like him, cheap talk, won't put his money where his mouth is. That's just for the ordinary people who have to comply.

Come on @ThehatchetMan surely I can?!

 

[Berbasbullet]

The amount of people who’ve said that Lineker should take refugees into his own home. You love to see it.

Then they quickly shift the goal posts.

 

[dumbo]

Fairplay to Lineker.
Hopefully after some changes to the law have been made, he makes room in his house and properties and takes a few of them in.
We stand together and help each other out. Furthermore his kids shouldn't go to private school where they don't make contact, let them go to public schools. Can't have those gated communities, can we?! As most likely with guys like him, cheap talk, won't put his money where his mouth is. That's just for the ordinary people who have to comply.

Fecking hell, not another one of these, crawling out of their hole of ignorance to apply these conditions to Gary Lineker's freedom to speak. It was funny the first couple of times but it's really fecking boring seeing posters continue to make complete fools of themselves with the same bullshit argument.

He doesn't need to take in any refugees to speak on the issue. And also he does take in refugees, in his own house.

If you want to share an opinion about something then at least read the brief synopsis. It will give you the basic overview of the situation and might just save you from looking a fecking ass.

 

[dal]

Rashford and Linekar should team up. Properly hold the government to account.

 

[justsomebloke]

You never make mistakes? That's hardly egregious.

Not of the using "of" instead "have" calibre, I hope. Surely there is some sort of limit somewhere if you're going to communicate publicly as a person worth paying attention to.

 

[Balljy]

Nicky Campbell on 5Live is having a phone in about the BBC, Lineker, impartiality etc right now if anyone is interested. Will be on BBC Sounds later if you miss it. Arguably the Beeb's best presenter/journo.

Yeah, he's very good. He's highlighted the problems with impartiality in the BBC for years now. I remember him saying that he was told that the wording relates to being balanced which is a very different thing from impartiality and means he has to put an alternative view for arguments that really don't deserve one.

He's also said in the past that impartiality shouldn't mean that the BBC can't criticise government policies in editorial articles as it can still be impartial to point out factual flaws.

 

[nickm]

Yeah, he's very good. He's highlighted the problems with impartiality in the BBC for years now. I remember him saying that he was told that the wording relates to being balanced which is a very different thing from impartiality and means he has to put an alternative view for arguments that really don't deserve one.

Fiona Bruce, anyone?

I don't think viewers understand what it means either.

 

[SilentWitness]

Fiona Bruce, anyone?

I don't think viewers understand what it means either.

no.

 

[glazed]

Ultimately the BBC have built their credibility around a concept, impartiality, that they are unable to define. That intellectual vaccuum at the heart of their mission will keep coming back again and again in different forms.

 

[Spoony]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Good stuff.

 

[SilentWitness]

She hurts my brain.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Not surprised by this at all. Felt her position with the group would become untenable. She's blaming social media but reality is you can't be do both sides when it comes to domestic abuse like that.

 

[caid]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Not surprised by this at all. Felt her position with the group would become untenable. She's blaming social media but reality is you can't be do both sides when it comes to domestic abuse like that.

Quite sad. Poor judgement on her part but i assume she helped them in the past.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Not surprised by this at all. Felt her position with the group would become untenable. She's blaming social media but reality is you can't be do both sides when it comes to domestic abuse like that.

God damn social media quoting her words instead of letting her say any old shite she wants without recourse.

 

[Pexbo]

If as host of a political show you’ve said something that’s caused a social media storm that’s resulted in you having to step down as Ambassador of a domestic violence charity, perhaps it’s time to consider whether you should also step down as host of the political show.

 

[nickm]

"Last week on Question Time, I was required to legally contextualise a question about Stanley Johnson.
"Those words have been taken as an expression of my own opinions which they are absolutely not, and as a minimising of domestic abuse, which I would never do.” From the article.

So as I thought, she was under a legal obligation..

 

[nickm]

If as host of a political show you’ve said something that’s caused a social media storm that’s resulted in you having to step down as Ambassador of a domestic violence charity, perhaps it’s time to consider whether you should also step down as host of the political show.

Oh please do stop. The virtue signalling is making me feel quite nauseous.

 

[nickm]

God damn social media quoting her words instead of letting her say any old shite she wants without recourse.

Words she says she was legally required to stay in her professional capacity.

 

[Redlambs]

Words she says she was legally required to stay.

"legally required"...what does that mean exactly? Did she have to say them on punishment of jail for example?

 

[SilentWitness]

"legally required"...what does that mean exactly? Did she have to say them on punishment of jail for example?

I’m struggling to understand this too.

 

[nickm]

"legally required"...what does that mean exactly? Did she have to say them on punishment of jail for example?

Being sued. You clearly have no idea how restrictive libel laws are, the penalties that apply and the responsibility on publishers and broadcasters as a result.

She works in the media, the lawyers often vet contentious statements in advance. She was following a corporate line.

What I find frustrating is that none of this should be a surprise to anyone but everyone rushed to take the words at face value, nobody wants to stop and think. Everyone loves to rush to judgement, nobody wants to extend the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Red in STL]

"legally required"...what does that mean exactly? Did she have to say them on punishment of jail for example?

Legally required as part of her contract of employment probably

 

[DOTA]

You're all repeating the phrase 'legally required' when the statement says "was required to legally contextualise" which sound like very different things to me.

 

[caid]

I presumed it was an editorial decision. I just think as an ambassador for refuge, she probably should have recognised how distasteful it was and objected. If she turned around the day after and said it wasn't her decision then the pitchforks would have moved on.
Defending it is a bad look.
The idea it was legally required is horseshit. Just total nonsense.

 

[nickm]

You're all repeating the phrase 'legally required' when the statement says "was required to legally contextualise" which sound like very different things to me.

You have someone on the show saying he is a wife beater, which is potentially defamatory. So she put it into a legal context by reporting where the accusation originated, what the accusation was, and the only available response.

 

[Redlambs]

Being sued. You clearly have no idea how restrictive libel laws are, the penalties that apply and the responsibility on publishers and broadcasters as a result.

She works in the media, the lawyers often vet contentious statements in advance. She was following a corporate line.

Hmmm...

What I find frustrating is that none of this should be a surprise to anyone but everyone rushed to take the words at face value, nobody wants to stop and think. Everyone loves to rush to judgement, nobody wants to extend the benefit of the doubt.

You've just done that. Well done you.

Legally required as part of her contract of employment probably

Yep. She had a choice, she chose. Just like Lineker did and subsequently has.

 

[Redlambs]

You have someone on the show saying he is a wife beater, which is potentially defamatory. So she put it into a legal context by reporting where the accusation originated and the only available response.

And she is now stepping down from something she isn't "legally required" to step down from.

You are no different to those who you think have hounded her out.

 

[Pexbo]

"Last week on Question Time, I was required to legally contextualise a question about Stanley Johnson.
"Those words have been taken as an expression of my own opinions which they are absolutely not, and as a minimising of domestic abuse, which I would never do.” From the article.

So as I thought, she was under a legal obligation..

As said above. “Legally contextualise”

Do you want to explain what that means because it doesn’t mean she was legally required like you are suggesting.

In no legal context was she required to provide the hearsay account she gave when Johnson had clearly refused to go on record.

“Stanley Johnson strongly denies the allegations” would be one thing and perfectly reasonable.

“Stanley Johnson has not commented publicly on that. Friends of his have said it did happen but it was a one-off”

Why would she be legally required to say that his mates said it did happen but it was only once when she confirms in the same sentence that Stanley Johnson himself is refusing the opportunity to give his side of the story?

 

[nickm]

Yep. She had a choice, she chose. Just like Lineker did and subsequently has.

God, my brain hurts. The core of Linker's "defence" is what he said, was on Twitter and unconnected to his role on MOTD. The complete opposite to Bruce, who was in her professional role at the time and "required to legally contextualise".

 

[Redlambs]

I’m struggling to understand this too.

You won't ever get a straight answer. People like nick like to pretend they know, but they really don't understand because they simply can't. They have a side and that hinders their ability to think and empathise.

Fiona Bruce had a choice of what to say, she chose the words she did. And even if it was against the exact words her employers wanted, she'd be perfectly fine in the outcome. Legally speaking of course.

 

[Redlambs]

God, my brain hurts. The core of Linker's "defence" is what he said, was on Twitter an unconnected to his role on MOTD. The complete opposite to Bruce, who was in her professional role at the time and "required to legally contextualise".

Your brain hurts, because you don't seem to understand how to quote and edit posts.

 

[nickm]

And she is now stepping down from something she isn't "legally required" to step down from.

She's stepping down because every time she opens her mouth as the ambassador, she'll be shouted down by people like you.

 

[Redlambs]

She's stepping down because every time she opens her mouth as the ambassador, she'll be shouted down by people like you.

People like me?

Funny how you can't quote properly, ignored your own hypocrisy and still defend someone who downplayed domestic violence. Yeah, you clearly are the one who has it all figured out in this discussion.

 

[nickm]

People like me?

Funny how you can't quote properly, ignored your own hypocrisy and still defend someone who downplayed domestic violence. Yeah, you clearly are the one who has it all figured out in this discussion.

I'm pretty sure I don't have it all figured out, but you go ahead and judge. I can tell you are the sort who enjoys it.

 

[dumbo]

When you're prioritising expressing your own disgust at what you see as virtue signalling on behalf of domestic abuse, above the violent abuse itself, you're part of the problem.