Balance within the BBC

[Anastasius]

I am shocked that an aside that sacking an outspoken presenter would have saved more than the axeing of the BBC Singers has generated so much controversy from a left-wing viewpoint. I have avoided commenting in political threads on this forum as I thought that it was to discuss mattters relevant to Radio3 content and related topics. However, for the record, I have been a member of the Conservative Party on-and-off since my early 20s (I am now in my early 70s) and hsave contested local elections as a Conservative in 3 cities over that period, most recently in Manchester in 2018. Of course I respect the democratic values of this country and the right of others to disagree with me. I will now refrain from further political comment on this forum and confine my remarks to musical and cultural matters.

Similar background to you re the Conservatives although my involvement limited simply voting. Similar age. I certainly won't be voting for them again.

Sack Lineker. Use his salary towards the BBC Singers.

[JasonPalmer]

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

[Jazzrook]

Would Lineker still be presenting MOTD if he'd sent a tweet praising the Tory immigration policy?

JR

[RichardB]

Would Lineker still be presenting MOTD if he'd sent a tweet praising the Tory immigration policy?

Yes and he'd be in line for a peerage as well.

[Anastasius]

Meanwhile, in other news today. World War III has broken out.

I find the whole thing ludicrous and pathetic.

[oddoneout]

Meanwhile, in other news today. World War III has broken out.

I find the whole thing ludicrous and pathetic.

In some respects it is, but it has also shone a very large spotlight on something(Illegal Immigration Bill - what an apt title as many have observed) the government was hoping to push through with minimal attention. It has also highlighted the problems that the BBC is facing, which have been festering for some time.

[RichardB]

In some respects it is, but it has also shone a very large spotlight on something(Illegal Immigration Bill - what an apt title as many have observed) the government was hoping to push through with minimal attention. It has also highlighted the problems that the BBC is facing, which have been festering for some time.

Indeed. I take no interest in football or Gary Lineker but the issue of the government’s inhuman and senseless immigration policy has now been highlighted in a way that it wouldn’t otherwise have been, and linked to issues of free speech and the role and nature of the BBC. I suppose Keir Starmer et al will agree once they’ve put it to a focus group or two.

[Ein Heldenleben]

In some respects it is, but it has also shone a very large spotlight on something(Illegal Immigration Bill - what an apt title as many have observed) the government was hoping to push through with minimal attention. It has also highlighted the problems that the BBC is facing, which have been festering for some time.

I think that’s a misreading. The government wanted maximum attention for the bill. Part of it purpose politically is to force a dividing line between themselves and Labour - to back them into a corner on issue in which many traditional labour voters have strong feelings. The danger for the Tories is that they alienate “liberal” Tories in some of their safest seats. This row has had the very unfortunate distractive effect of drawing attention to the policy in a very simplistic way but preventing any real discussion of its contents and its possible legal (and human) consequences. So we now have an unproductive “meta “row . A discussion about media coverage but not the actual issue - that’s very dangerous in my view. I despair at the BBC’s handling of it.

[DracoM]

.and by making such a MESS of it all eg BBC cancelling of Lineker etc-led football progs - i.e progs MOST likely to be A+ pretty popular in so-called 'red wall' areas.........??

If the Beeb had very quietly talked to GL and NOT allowed this row to have surfaced like a mighty blue whale, it would all have gone away by now and everyone would have forgotten it, or not even have noticed it at all!!

Does the BBC intend that NONE of its 'big name' presenters can ever register opinions - i.e. curtailing free speech?

Wow! Doesn't look very good!

[oddoneout]

I think that’s a misreading. The government wanted maximum attention for the bill. Part of it purpose politically is to force a dividing line between themselves and Labour - to back them into a corner on issue in which many traditional labour voters have strong feelings. The danger for the Tories is that they alienate “liberal” Tories in some of their safest seats. This row has had the very unfortunate distractive effect of drawing attention to the policy in a very simplistic way but preventing any real discussion of its contents and its possible legal (and human) consequences. So we now have an unproductive “meta “row . A discussion about media coverage but not the actual issue - that’s very dangerous in my view. I despair at the BBC’s handling of it.

I would agree that maximum attention was wanted for the "Stop the boats" element, but I'm not convinced they were equally keen for details of how that would be achieved, nor the implications and ramifications of that simplistic slogan, to be given such a high profile. The fact that GL has millions of followers to whom his views have become available is very much not in the game plan I suggest. The mess arising from the BBC's involvement, on the other hand, is not something that exercises the government greatly in my view; it's not as if said government is a committed supporter of the the BBC and the purposes for which it was set up and should fulfill.

[mikealdren]

The mess arising from the BBC's involvement, on the other hand, is not something that exercises the government greatly in my view; it's not as if said government is a committed supporter of the the BBC and the purposes for which it was set up and should fulfill.

The government certainly doesn't seem to be a Beeb supporter however I'm not sure that it doesn't support what it was set up for. Like many, I'm not convinced that the Beeb itself now fulfils the purposes for which it was set up and it seems to be following an increasingly popularist agenda as evidenced by the Lineker red wall comments above and the recent treatment of classical music.

[Pulcinella]

The government certainly doesn't seem to be a Beeb supporter however I'm not sure that it doesn't support what it was set up for. Like many, I'm not convinced that the Beeb itself now fulfils the purposes for which it was set up and it seems to be following an increasingly popularist agenda as evidenced by the Lineker red wall comments above and the recent treatment of classical music.

Maybe, but without giving it the ability to be funded properly.
My partner has just returned from Italy, where, he understands, there is a supplement on everyone's electricity bill to fund their national broadcaster, RAI.
How much simpler than the system we adopt.
Nothing is ever straightforward in the UK: if there's a way to make something more complicated, we choose that every time.

[Bryn]

Maybe, but without giving it the ability to be funded properly.
My partner has just returned from Italy, where, he understands, there is a supplement on everyone's electricity bill to fund their national broadcaster, RAI.
How much simpler than the system we adopt.
Nothing is ever straightforward in the UK: if there's a way to make something more complicated, we choose that every time.

Hmm. Does that mean that those who generate their own electricity in Italy get free access to radio and television broadcasts?

[Petrushka]

Maybe, but without giving it the ability to be funded properly.
My partner has just returned from Italy, where, he understands, there is a supplement on everyone's electricity bill to fund their national broadcaster, RAI.
How much simpler than the system we adopt.
Nothing is ever straightforward in the UK: if there's a way to make something more complicated, we choose that every time.

I'd put it slightly differently. The UK takes absolutely no notice of what other countries do and then go with what works best. Instead, we go our own way and make a total hash if it.

[Pulcinella]

I'd put it slightly differently. The UK takes absolutely no notice of what other countries do and then go with what works best. Instead, we go our own way and make a total hash if it.

Yes: that's a better way of putting it.