Should Richard Sharp Bbc Chairman Now Resign?

[Gromit]

Lineker back after BBC bows to criticism over his banning.

Meanwhile Part II of this gripping saga also has a predictable ending…
The i newspaper reports on growing pressure on BBC Chairman Richard Sharp to resign after impartiality row shines light on his links to Boris Johnson.

[nicebloke1]

If GL was watching immigrants getting medical treatment while he was waiting in a 7 million waiting list, and struggling to get a dental and doctors appointment, I think his attitude would change overnight.
But of course he don't have to wait with that sort of income.
It looks like he calls all the shots at the BBC. Maybe if they all flood his living / home area he may also change his mind.

[Zacs-Master]

‘ It looks like he calls all the shots at the BBC’

No, the BBC has realised they made an error of judgement and, to their credit, have reinstated him.

[bazwillrun]

"Lineker is playing dumb because he won't recognise that many (majority imo) are not fleeing their home from persecution or war to seek refuge."

99.999% arent, they are coming here to what they see as the land of milk and honey and benefits of all kind, freebies that they know they will sooner or later get...

[New Judge]

//No, the BBC has realised they made an error of judgement...//

What error would that be then, Zacs?

Mr Lineker's "following" on Twitter and the like comes almost exclusively from his exposure on the BBC. If he didn't have his high profile job with the national broadcaster he would be just another retired footballer of whom few people had heard and even fewer interested in. Anything he says will inevitably reflect on the BBC as he is their highest paid presenter.

What he said - that the current UK government was using language not dissimilar to that used by the German government in the 1930s - was a crude insult to a government that is trying to tackle one of the biggest issues which the country faces. It's strange that many of the new-born liberati have suddenly found it in themselves to demand GL's right to free speech (when that speech contains something they agree with) but have spent most of their time shutting down and "cancelling" those with whom they disagree. But that really isn't the point. What he said may be his (IMO badly researched and somewhat uninformed) opinion. But unfortunately for him, he is in a position where he needs to be careful when considering criticising the government of the day.

I believe the BBC will rue the day it capitulated to the petulance of GL and his mates. They should have rode out the storm, if necessary dispensing with Mr Lineker's services (along with anybody else who decided to stop working as they had agreed to do). This will come back to bite them, I am fairly sure.

[Peter Pedant]

If he's 'currently being investigated' he and everyone else should await the outcome.
in my opinion, there is some feeble idea that if a thing 'is being investigated' then you have to wait for the outcome without discussion. The outcome is then handed down like some gospel. In my opinion, you dont. It is only after being charged that discussion should cease in case. Even the judges have opined that it should only apply to jury cases.

so what does Mrs Stanley Johnson, say?
Call me Lady, apparently

[youngmafbog]

Oh dear, you will upset the 'right-on' with that post NJ, the truth always hurts.

[sp1814]

What Mr Lineker tweeted was accurate.

From a speech given by Hitler in 1939:

"We are not in a position to take in the Jews. In these empires there are not 10 people to the square kilometer. While Germany, with her 135 inhabitants to the square kilometer, is supposed to have room for them!"

"For hundreds of years Germany was good enough to receive these elements, although they possessed nothing except infectious political and physical diseases. What they possess today, they have by a very large extent gained at the cost of the less astute German nation by the most reprehensible manipulations."

"The world has sufficient space for settlements, but we must once and for all get rid of the opinion that the Jewish race was only created by God for the purpose of being in a certain percentage a parasite living on the body and the productive work of other nations. The Jewish race will have to adapt itself to sound constructive activity as other nations do, or sooner or later it will succumb to a crisis of an inconceivable magnitude."

(from https://www.yadvashem.org/docs/extract-from-hitler-speech.html).

Switch out "Jews" for "immigrants" and tonally, it sounds an awful lot like the current Tory rhetoric.

[sp1814]

If Mr Lineker is not allowed to exercise his freedom of speech, then surely the same should have have been true about Mary Beard who critiqued the governments policies on the sugar tax?

And Lord Sugar's attacks on the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn.

And Andrew Neil's position as chairman of the Spectator whilst working at the BBC?

And Jeremy Clarkson being allowed to make comments on politics in his column in the Sun whilst also working for the BBC?

And those who wish to silence Lineker on his political stance now, should surely decry the authorised political position he was allow to speak about Qatar on the outset of the World Cup?

It's also strange that those who wish to shut down and cancel Lineker have vehemently in favour of free speech...as long long as whoever is speaking agrees with them.

[naomi24]

SP, if that sounds to you like current Tory rhetoric all I can say is you’ve a very vivid imagination.

[Arrods]

I'm not too bothered about Lineker and this free speech malarkey, I just think he's so overrated.

I see that Laura Kuinsberg has been criticised for quoting two emails rubbishing Lineker and none in support. Perhaps there weren't any?

[Togo]

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ebc2858c3e2b93ec824626d9c65eb1e398ced4e9a83eafbf89017fec54ad8b4b.jpg?w=600&h=545


From elsewhere on the www.

""Had I, or pretty much anyone else, posted what Lineker did we would have been sacked for bringing our employers into disrepute, that is the reality of life in the current workplace.
Irrespective of impartiality and the licence fee, or even whether he is a permanent employee or an external contractor, Lineker is a high profile person who is inextricably linked to the BBC. As such he should have been sacked and would have been by any other employer.
That Lineker hasn't been either sacked nor forced to apologise now sets a high profile precedent that employees who have been penalised for social media comments can cite this case to get back at their (former) employers. Consequently I think that Lineker has actually, and inadvertently, struck a blow against the wokerati who try to stifle genuine free speech. His short term win could end up being a long term defeat for him and people like him.""

^^and hurrah for that.

[sp1814]

Lineker is back this weekend and the BBC is having an independent review of its social media guidelines.
Why waste money on that? It’s quite simple:

Anyone working in News and Current Affairs must remain impartial.

Anyone else can say what they like, because it's a free country.

//Had I, or pretty much anyone else, posted what Lineker did we would have been sacked for bringing our employers into disrepute, that is the reality of life in the current workplace.//

Nope...simply not true. Like Mary Berry, Lord Sugar, Chris Packham or Deborah Meaden you can work for the BBC and have political opinions and air them.

And he wasn't bringing his company into disrepute. He would be if he were Huw Edwards, but he isn't.

[sp1814]

Those BBC negotiations in full:

“Delete the tweets”
“No”
“Okay, well, apologise for them”
“No”
“We’ll get somebody else in to do your job if you don’t”
*Everyone downs tools*
“Will you at least promise not to tweet political stuff in the future?”
“No”
“Okay, we have a deal”

[Zacs-Master]

Of there was no error then why is he coming back without an apology and why is there to be an ‘independent’ review of it’s social media guidelines?

[Zacs-Master]

*If (or course)

[ichkeria]

Because part of the process is to name each side look like they’ve given something
Which is fair enough: the whole thing has been very silly. Need to repair the damage and move on.
Well said on all your posts sp: a voice of common sense and compassion very overdue

[Zacs-Master]

I can’t see that Lineker has given anything.

[vulcan42]

It's obvious now just who has the influence in the BBC. Richard Sharp £160,000, Gary Lineker £1.35million (probably plus).

[ichkeria]

“can’t see that Lineker has given anything”

He’s agreed to “stick by the guidelines” whatever that means and he’s said some nicethings about Tim Davie.
But of course you can’t see. Nobody can. We are on the outside
But I’d imagine that for now he’s agreed not to say nasty things about the Tories

[Togo]

@19.03 The poster was again selective in what he/she(can't be too careful these days)chooses to sample from a paragraph, and render it something other than it is in order to be falsely contentious. This is the remainder of the sampled piece.

"" Irrespective of impartiality and the licence fee, or even whether he is a permanent employee or an external contractor, Lineker is a high profile person who is inextricably linked to the BBC. As such he should have been sacked and would have been by any other employer.
That Lineker hasn't been either sacked nor forced to apologise now sets a high profile precedent that employees who have been penalised for social media comments can cite this case to get back at their (former) employers. Consequently I think that Lineker has actually, and inadvertently, struck a blow against the wokerati who try to stifle genuine free speech. His short term win could end up being a long term defeat for him and people like him""