[Football] Gary Lineker to step back from presenting MOTD

[Titanic]

Gary Lineker to step back from presenting MOTD

Gary Lineker to step back from presenting Match of the Day until agreement reached on social media use - BBC statement

www.bbc.co.uk

Gary Lineker is to step back from presenting Match of the Day until an agreement is reached on his social media use - BBC statement.
It follows an impartiality row over comments he made criticising the government's new asylum policy.
In a tweet, the presenter had compared the language used by the government to set out its plan to "that used by Germany in the 30s".

 

[Giraffe]

Every time this thread gets bounced I think he has gone finally.

I may have said that before.

I may say it again.

 

[zefarelly]

I'm not going to get preachy. I used a solicitor to legitimately and legally make sure I paid the minimum of tax on an unexpected income. I didn't think it was immoral at all. I would have thought many would query that- until it affects them. I've always commented on how good us English are at hypocrisy.

Another way to consider is inheritance. I read one thing . . .got told another, Then when I dug further I discovered I was right and they were wrong. . Someone at HMRC told me a few things. Eventually I Saved the family enough to give 2 grandchildren a head start.

 

[GT49er]

Every time this thread gets bounced I think he has gone finally.

I may have said that before.

I may say it again.

I too hope! Not that I dislike Lineker - or have much interest in the recent furore. Just that it would be good for the BBC to get him off the pay roll and replace him with an equally likeable and competant presenter, but one without such an eye-watering remuneration (self-employed or otherwise)!

 

[worthingseagull123]

I wouldn’t argue with your preferences, that’s down to you and what you like but the BBC not value for money?

I’m sorry I just can’t accept that as a universal truth.

The list of their output and resources is practically endless and far too comprehensive to list here. From shite like Eastenders to the beauty of Attenborough. From kids education mags to university resources. From R1,2,3,4,5 and 6 to regional radio fare that keeps old biddies company in their dotage. From Sorry, I haven’t a clue to the world service that has kept everyone from POW’s to insomniacs sane for 100 years.

I’ll hear many an argument but the BBC not value for money? Sorry, I can’t have that.

If you like it, carry on paying for TV licence.

I can opt out and just watch Amazon, Prime and Disney Plus which I am happy to pay for.

Sky News and Al Jazeera have apps on the Firestick. I can get all I want not have to pay for the licence.

 

[The Clamp]

If you like it, carry on paying for TV licence.

I can opt out and just watch Amazon, Prime and Disney Plus which I am happy to pay for.

Sky News and Al Jazeera have apps on the Firestick. I can get all I want not have to pay for the licence.

Exactly. Nobody is currently forced to pay for a TV license.

 

[BadFish]

Surely the answer to this tax business is for the government t to close the loop holes used for for tax avoidance.

I can't think of any good reasons why they won't .

 

[The Clamp]

Surely the answer to this tax business is for the government t to close the loop holes used for for tax avoidance.

I can't think of any good reasons why they won't .

Quite.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's f***ing amazing value for money. I'd pay the licence fee just for Radio 5, TMS and Warren and Johnny let alone everything else the BBC has to offer. Still once the right wing idiots finally get their wish and destroy one of the best institutions this country has, that is respected the world over they'll have one less thing to moan about.

never quite convinced by this line... you'd happily pay £160 TV licence for a handful of radio channels?

Of course the government have been eroding the by stealth in freezing the licence fee. Local BBC is suffering as is the world service, a great source of British soft power.

its for the BBC how they spend their budget, if they'd rather provide historical dramas over local radio and news.

maybe there needs to be some revision of whats public service or high quality content, and whats quasi-commercial or broadcast filler. they can make proper money selling the good stuff overseas and funding for the public service that way.

 

[The Clamp]

never quite convinced by this line... you'd happily pay £160 TV licence for a handful of radio channels?


its for the BBC how they spend their budget, if they'd rather provide historical dramas over local radio and news.

maybe there needs to be some revision of whats public service or high quality content, and whats quasi-commercial or broadcast filler. they can make proper money selling the good stuff overseas and funding for the public service that way.

If I had to pay £13 a month for the BBC radio channels, I’d honestly be quite happy.

I listen to Radio 4, 6, and 3 in rotation almost constantly through the day and regularly dive into the archives on BBC Sounds. If I had to choose between radio and telly, telly would win every time.

For the use I get? Terrific value.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I too hope! Not that I dislike Lineker - or have much interest in the recent furore. Just that it would be good for the BBC to get him off the pay roll and replace him with an equally likeable and competant presenter, but one without such an eye-watering remuneration (self-employed or otherwise)!

Talent costs money though. If you want someone who ticks all the Lineker boxes, then they will most likely come at a high price. Why would someone undersell themselves?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I think the BBC will change its funding model but I’m not expecting a full scrapping of the license fee anytime soon.

The current motives behind the scrapping of the fee are right wing, divisive, and designed to weaken the organisation. This approach rarely works.

A more measured approach that highlights the fact you do not have to have a TV license if you do not wish to but also allows for the quality of output and important domestic and global programming to be maintained is the way forward. Free of culture war, engineered divisions and extreme left or right wing meddling.

I’m not so sure. We can’t have a public service broadcaster without a universal license fee. The BBC is either a community asset or it just another Sky or ITV.

 

[Deadly Danson]

never quite convinced by this line... you'd happily pay £160 TV licence for a handful of radio channels?

Absolutely. In the grand scheme of things it's a bargain. Hell, I pay £60 odd a month to watch a few hours of football and £15 to park the car each game. Like a lot of things, the BBC is flawed but brilliant.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

It is just such poor value for money. I’ll be cancelling Sky for same reason when my contract is up in the summer.

Stick to Prime, Netflix and Disney plus is all I need and wont require a licence.

With people more and more ditching live TV, for on demand, there is little future for live TV (barring news stations and live sport - all of which can be taken from an on-demand provider).

Still with not having to pay a licence, at least I don’t have to complain about my TV licence fee going towards paying Gary’s obscene salary.

Utter tosh. If you can't find 44p's worth of value within the radio, TV (including iPlayer) or website every day (or £13.25 a month), then you're not trying hard enough.

Just yesterday I read a story by an investigative journalist (among many other bits on the website) that was worth the money alone.

No, of course the BBC is not perfect, but to call it 'poor value for money', is just absolute nonsense.

 

[5Ways Gull]

If I had to pay £13 a month for the BBC radio channels, I’d honestly be quite happy.

I listen to Radio 4, 6, and 3 in rotation almost constantly through the day and regularly dive into the archives on BBC Sounds. If I had to choose between radio and telly, telly would win every time.

For the use I get? Terrific value.

I'm happy paying my licence fee just for Bargain Hunt

 

[The Clamp]

I’m not so sure. We can’t have a public service broadcaster without a universal license fee. The BBC is either a community asset or it just another Sky or ITV.

It’s not a universal license fee. Don’t use it, don’t pay for it.

 

[Icy Gull]

I'm happy paying my licence fee just for Bargain Hunt

I would be too if they could just cut out the plethora of incredibly cheesy puns

Having said that the whole thing is cheesy but fun

I have a little gripe when I get my licence renewal but it is peanuts over a year given what you get. Too many adverts though….in the form of very repetitive programme promotion

 

[zefarelly]

If I had to pay £13 a month for the BBC radio channels, I’d honestly be quite happy.

I listen to Radio 4, 6, and 3 in rotation almost constantly through the day and regularly dive into the archives on BBC Sounds. If I had to choose between radio and telly, telly would win every time.

For the use I get? Terrific value.

A friend had a live radio session On R6 recently, and another friend is a sound engineer @ BBC Radio. The quality of what they produce is second to none. I know how long, how many and how much it costs to do a lot of this stuff. It is good value.

I struggle to see how anyone is worth £1m + a year though. The upper echelons of most industries operate like a mafia with a protection racket

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

It’s not a universal license fee. Don’t use it, don’t pay for it.

Fair enough. I didn’t know people did that. We’ve always had a tv license and I think it the best value tv subscription we have.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I’m not so sure. We can’t have a public service broadcaster without a universal license fee. The BBC is either a community asset or it just another Sky or ITV.

I agree there needs to be a license fee. I would also suggest they set up Friends-off-BBC subscription; I’d happily pay a monthly donation for the music docs alone.

 

[beorhthelm]

I’m not so sure. We can’t have a public service broadcaster without a universal license fee. The BBC is either a community asset or it just another Sky or ITV.

why not fund out of general taxation? certainly for the community service end. as so many are happy to pay, a subscription based service would make more sense for main channels wouldn't it? the TV licence might have made sense once, now there are so many alternatives it doesn't fit. and its full of anomolies, like you need one for a dvd player but not for watching streaming services.