Salmon Fishing Forum banner

Maybe Linekar Was Correct?

3K views 65 replies 18 participants last post by  Occasional salmon fisher 
#1 · (Edited)
This is Dame Melanie Dawes being quizzed by John Nicholson, SNP MP, about GB News having Tory ministers presenting and interviewing on the show, despite that being against Ofcom rules. Dawes would have been hand selected by the Tories after they changed the rules to allow them to select high profile civil servants, rather than only having a veto over a selected candidate. Put this in context of the Tories also appointing a Tory to the head of the BBC and it starts to look a lot like state controlled media which, as we all know, is one of the early signs of a fascist reigime.

In the same questioning session, Dawes stated that she was unaware of the Fiona Bruce / Stanley Johnson wife beating muddle. Surely that is hard to believe.

<iframe width="1280" height="704" src="" title="Why do Tory MPs get to host news shows? Ofcom chief GRILLED by John Nicolson" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
#4 ·
There is lots that is wrong about the Westminster machine at the moment and I do not see that changing in my lifetime. However, as long as they can get the people to believe that anybody that questions them, anybody from a foreign country and anybody speaking out against the government is an enemy of the state, they have the control they need to stay in power.

I see these behaviours regularly in workplaces; bad managers making enemies of everybody but their own team to create an "us against them" illusion to gain loyalty and, it is hugely disruptive and unhelpful to common progress.
 
#5 ·
Believe me, I have not been sleeping on this. It first became apparent to me during the 2014 independence referendum. If anything, it has got worse since then.

It gives credence to what Linekar said because he linked the language of our government to the language used in 1930's Germany. This is just more evidence of similar behaviours with state controlled media. The changes in the rules for hand selecting top civil servants aided this.
 
#10 ·
This is Dame Melanie Dawes being quizzed by John Nicholson, SNP MP, about GB News having Tory ministers presenting and interviewing on the show, despite that being against Ofcom rules. Dawes would have been hand selected by the Tories after they changed the rules to allow them to select high profile civil servants, rather than only having a veto over a selected candidate. Put this in context of the Tories also appointing a Tory to the head of the BBC and it starts to look a lot like state controlled media which, as we all know, is one of the early signs of a fascist reigime.

In the same questioning session, Dawes stated that she was unaware of the Fiona Bruce / Stanley Johnson wife beating muddle. Surely that is hard to believe.
A very open secret that the B.B.C. is state controlled. Was it never thus?
It's just like the National, absolutely no impartiality, it just feeds propaganda to those that are minded to listen.
Are you naive enough to think that if Scotland ever became independent that the media would have a free reign?
Surprised if you are really that .impressionable?
Already our own media up here are well suppressed and it would only get much, much worse.
:(
 
#21 ·
Guten Tag

I worry myself that the electorate won’t be able to vote out the Nazis/Fascists/Tories etc at the next election as it’ll be rigged, we’ll be misinformed by the media and our minds will be controlled by the state…

Naturally anyone stupid enough to vote Tory will be an uninformed racist bigot just like everyone who voted for Brexit, and what a fine show the left put on after that vote in terms of accepting freedom of speech and democracy.

Auf wiedersehn.
 
#30 ·
Funnily enough living in Twickenham (in the same London Borough as a certain Mr Lineker) I’m pretty certain that I know the difference between Left and Liberal as I have both a Liberal MP and a Liberal council.

You’re so right about it not being a two party system, we have the Green Party, how many seats? The Liberal Party or whatever they’re called these days, how many seats and the….

And yes I agree that on Brexit people voted against the system, they probably also voted against a load of bleeding heart Liberals who were great at telling them how to live their lives but did nothing to improve it, in fact not unlike Lineker with his specially chosen pet refugee.
 
#35 ·
Funnily enough living in Twickenham (in the same London Borough as a certain Mr Lineker) I’m pretty certain that I know the difference between Left and Liberal as I have both a Liberal MP and a Liberal council.

You’re so right about it not being a two party system, we have the Green Party, how many seats? The Liberal Party or whatever they’re called these days, how many seats and the….

And yes I agree that on Brexit people voted against the system, they probably also voted against a load of bleeding heart Liberals who were great at telling them how to live their lives but did nothing to improve it, in fact not unlike Lineker with his specially chosen pet refugee.
Its really a 3 party system.
But the 3rd one in westminister is the SNP.
 
#48 ·
he says he is his own man, he can say what he wants, of course he has the right to be wrong but not whilst he works for the BBC, clearly thats part of his contract. So if he is committed wouldn't he leave the BBC start his own Match of the Day and be able to say what and when he likes or maybe he is more interested in the money?
 
#51 ·
He doesn't work for the BBC. He's a freelancer. And the part of his contract around social media use is very woolly, while the BBC's general social media guidelines uses the specific example of sports presenters expressing political opinions on their own social media channels as being 'low risk' to impartiality. He got suspended because he wouldn't apologise for the things he said. That doesn't strike me as someone more interested in the money. Someone interested in the money would have backed down.

While the money is on at the BBC is... healthy, he'd earn a lot more on Sky.
 
#49 ·
Wow, it's been a busy day here while I was at work - and I don't feel any freer for my efforts either.

Reading through we seem to be getting to the nub of things now, a couple of you (predictably) are happy enough with the guy comparing the tories with the nazis. The forums Simone Wiesenthal reproduces social media tat of such ridiculously incongruous content that a disclaimer is proffered in red (but reproduces it anyway:rolleyes:) and photos of concentration camps are published as supporting evidence for the govts nazi credentials:rolleyes:

I'm still at a total loss as to understanding what is happening in real life here. A couple of things I do know are that
Lineker is a professional publicist for the brand gary lineker. It's a successful business.
The BBC are a bunch of mouthy self publicists who's purpose is to win a ratings battle and also collectively make you think like they do (or feel bad about yourself if you don't)
They are ideologically roughly diametrically opposed to the nazi state information machine of the 30's, so to be govt stooges is preposterous - quite the opposite as it happens imo
The only thing remotely close to facism I have seen over here over the last few years were the liberal (and starmer) public proclamation that real democracy involved re-running the brexit vote. And secondly the states behaviours (forcefully egged on by the opposition) relating to mandatory vaccinations and the subsequent cover-ups of harm to both individuals and society. The BBC seem to me to be rather slow to get involved in criticising (or even questioning) either of those things. Ergo they must support facism:)
Lineker is a d!ck and his smug face will be unbearable to roundball watchers in future. Thankfully not me as I'm not interested.
 
#59 ·
If Lineker weren't one of the biggest, hypocritical. self publicists in the media, with a smugness and ego the size of Jupiter, maybe he wouldn't have taken the soft target issues in order to make the headlines and perhaps look at the problem in depth???
Maybe he should be querying why France (other countries on the way are also available) is allowing these people traffickers to operate totally openly judging by the amount of boats and human fodder we deal with? They clearly don't give a toss for the safety or misery experienced by the people that they make millions from and who end up the very people that the British taxpayer spends millions to accommodate whilst France kicks the problem across the channel?
Shouldn't he be questioning the number of military age young men and economic migrants turning up on our shores mixed among a few genuine refugee families fleeing war zones?
Shouldn't he just shut his mouth, stop the self aggrandisement, and G.T.F. out of our faces?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top