TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
USA view on the lineker scandal


The fracas gets to the heart of a historic tension at the broadcaster: It is funded by the state, but strives to remain impartial in its news coverage, and is generally seen as having aggressive coverage of the government, regardless of the political party in charge. Indeed, much of its website Saturday was given over to coverage of its own scandal. But while staffers are largely bound to remaining neutral, celebrity broadcasters such as Mr. Lineker are treated with more latitude to avoid them defecting to other channels.

Fair or not, the perception of bending to government pressure could damage the reputation of the broadcaster, which is one of the country’s key institutions, as central to national identity as the state-run health service or the monarchy.
 
volte face - Tim Davie should be walking instead - the inappropriate reaction to Lineker on top of bozo affair,
rugby/6nations commentary didn't seem to be impacted, though ?

[

chinese already had a bad opinion of bbc , which is reinforced

The BBC, as a typical Western media outlet, claims to be objective and fact-based. Nonetheless, it's not reporting facts but doing opinion journalism. In essence, it's a propaganda machine that serves the Western imperialism. The BBC is not a news media outlet in the common sense, but a tool to attack other countries that the West does not see eye to eye with. The BBC knows it is just a propaganda tool, but when it is confronted, it touts press freedom. When British politicians defend the BBC as a national treasure, they ignore the fact that this propaganda machine has long been infamous in other countries.

As Chinese netizens put it, the BBC reports China with a "gloom filter." That's why the sky over Chinese cities is always murky, cloudy, misty and polluted in BBC's video about China.

Meanwhile, the West adopts its own set of values and standards -- it only agrees with what fits their standards and bans whatever doesn't fit the standards. In early 2021, the UK regulator ofcom revoked the broadcast license of the Chinese state broadcaster CGTN in the UK because of its coverage of the Hong Kong protests. When the UK suppressed Chinese media outlets using various excuses, why did it turn a blind eye to the fabrication and neglect of justice of its own media?

]
 
volte face - Tim Davie should be walking instead - the inappropriate reaction to Lineker on top of bozo affair,
rugby/6nations commentary didn't seem to be impacted, though ?

[

chinese already had a bad opinion of bbc , which is reinforced



]
Well wasn't the Chinese ambassador asked about how they reneged on Hong Kong agreements etc live on air during Newsnight? Of course they will be painting the BBC in a bad light. It also reminds people of Tianamen Square and similar things the Chinese gov would rather not be brought up. They're hardly going to promote the beeb are they?
 
The BBC is far from perfect.............. but I personally would not read too much into what chinese media think of it.
Given a choice of BBC or Fox or GB News, of those 3 i will take the BBC.

Despite its ties to murdoch and Fox, skynews also seems decent enough to me as well, but i am not one of those who watches the news all day (far to depressing tbh).

I dont claim to be right, or an expert or anything.

As for Lineker.. He isnt an employee of the BBC and as such i think he should be free to post what he wants on his own social media (possibly making it obvious they are his views and not the BBC)

equally as he isnt an employee of the BBC, the BBC are imo perfectly entitled to drop him if they choose if they feel he is putting the company in a bad light.

as for all the other people refusing to work...... i hope they get docked a weeks pay for not showing up..... I get the urge to support a friend but end of the day they are paid handsomely to do a job. i dont get to refuse to work if i feel a disiplinary decision at my place is harsh..... i could have course quit.

I am sure if the entire pundit crew quit (without severance pay of course) there are plenty of others who know enough about the game to wax lyrical about it and ultimately cost the licence payers a lot less.

(I like lineker btw and think he is decent as a pundit..... and dont think he should be muzzled.... but freedom of speech is not freedom of responsibility so if his employer feels it puts them in a bad light then ............................. )
 
Last edited:
I had a letter from the Capita saying they will visit and I'll be "interviewed under caution" (not sure a salesman can do that) over not having/needing a licence lol. Well not if I just don't answer the door.

It seems like their nearest office is Oxford according to their letter, which is at least 50 miles away from me. They must be spending more money visiting people than they get back with this crap.
 
Last edited:
I had a letter from the Capita saying they will visit and I'll be "interviewed under caution" (not sure a salesman can do that) over not having/needing a licence lol. Well not if I just don't answer the door.

It seems like their nearest office is Oxford according to their letter, which is at least 50 miles away from me. They must be spending more money visiting people than they get back with this crap.

Show us the letter please but remove personal details.
 
Of course they will be painting the BBC in a bad light
yes but the bbc needs to be whiter than white , to minimize accusations, still, maybe bbc access is already blocked in china/russia (& vpn's illegal - that's why they break your door down there - Capita pfft).

I did wonder if some of the other pundits did not appear because they would not be capable of presenting the programmes on their own (probably reflected in their 'wages')
 
I did wonder if some of the other pundits did not appear because they would not be capable of presenting the programmes on their own (probably reflected in their 'wages')
naaah... i reckon the 1st few did it because they truly support him (and have the juice to get another job as well as afford to take the financial hit)...... then at some point all the rest did a "me too!" for fear of otherwise looking like a scab..... peer pressure etc.
 
Last edited:
He's back, so he's effectively won, keeps his job, doubled down and won't apologize.

They could literally stick potato in his chair and they would get more viewers. less talk, more football. He's not worth the money, or hassle.
 
Last edited:
I had a letter from the Capita saying they will visit and I'll be "interviewed under caution" (not sure a salesman can do that) over not having/needing a licence lol. Well not if I just don't answer the door.

It seems like their nearest office is Oxford according to their letter, which is at least 50 miles away from me. They must be spending more money visiting people than they get back with this crap.
The absolute cheek of it, I would have half the mind to take them to court for harassment over this.
 
He's back, so he's effectively won, keeps his job, doubled down and won't apologize.

Just heard, he's was already a **** and now he's going to become utterly unbearable. Having said that, I hope it'll open the floodgates for alternative opinions like Clarksons and not get into trouble over it. Obviously Clarkson doesn't work for the BBC any more but I'm sure there's more at the BBC that has stayed silent until now
 
Just heard, he's was already a **** and now he's going to become utterly unbearable. Having said that, I hope it'll open the floodgates for alternative opinions like Clarksons and not get into trouble over it. Obviously Clarkson doesn't work for the BBC any more but I'm sure there's more at the BBC that has stayed silent until now

And forums with out having need of evidence when it just opinions and thought.
 
I'm not getting it :P


Am I missing something grammatically here?
You are not missing anything, Skipper847 likes to post a lot of nonsense then will go onto blame everyone and everything else when he is called out on it. Best to ignore him or you will find yourself down a rabbit hole of one liner nonsense. Going by the other threads he wont explain what he meant instead using the same half dozen lines like "your only hearing what you want to hear" e.c.t.

Going back on topic. I am surprised at the lack of talk about BBC blocking David Attenborough latest episode of his new flagship wild life program. I guess even David isn't immune to the BBC who has totally lost the plot.
 
Show us the letter please but remove personal details.

Here we go. "Sir/Madam" and no name on the address means it just a generic spam letter.

IMG-20230313-193427-447.jpg

I feel insulted that they think they can just set deadlines and ultimatums for me. Obviously I'm not going to actually speak to them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom