Beeb Gags Lineker

[Proposition Joe]

“Much shorter show that’s at the centre of the biggest sh*t storm of the day gets extra viewers”, but of course idiots will be saying “wow guess the analysts aren’t needed!”

Analysts? Charmless gits like Alan Shearer and Ian Wright churning out the same old cliches week in, week out. " Shocking defending there, you just can't give him that much space. The full back really has to close him down much quicker than that" Do they ever say anything that is actually informative or remotely interesting?

Yes, sometimes. MotD2 better for more considered analysis but while Shearer used to be a cliche ridden joke who gave the impression he didn't do any prep whatsoever, he's noticeably improved as a pundit over the years. Ditto Wright.

[CEB]

Yep. Opposite trajectory to Neville IMO, who started off really putting the hours in, preparing and having something to say, but got himself so far ahead of the pack that he’s since eased off a lot, and his tiresome double act with Carragher is so, so dull

[Give it to Jabo]

All in all, well played, Lineker.

Thing is, if it had not been such a high-profile big-wig, the BBC Mis-Management would have got away with it. Ain't that the truth.

[tuffers#1]

Good friends have met him and he is just like that in real life. Smug, selfcentred, rude tw*t.

"If only he was White " !

[tuffers#1]

I doubt he would be getting this much support if he was white.

[tuffers#1]

Anyway. The right have won so many battles over the last few years it’s only fair you win one. Well done. Congratulations.

"Imagine if he was White "

[Rich Tea Wellin]

So refreshing to see someone stick to their views and morals and not suffer at the end of it.

[Max Fowler]

“Much shorter show that’s at the centre of the biggest sh*t storm of the day gets extra viewers”, but of course idiots will be saying “wow guess the analysts aren’t needed!”

Analysts? Charmless gits like Alan Shearer and Ian Wright churning out the same old cliches week in, week out. " Shocking defending there, you just can't give him that much space. The full back really has to close him down much quicker than that" Do they ever say anything that is actually informative or remotely interesting?

Yes, sometimes. MotD2 better for more considered analysis but while Shearer used to be a cliche ridden joke who have the impression he didn't do any prep whatsoever, he's noticeably improved as a pundit over the years. Ditto Wright.

Regardless, you still need someone to 'host' between games and even more importantly, you have to have someone commentating. Saturdays show was all a bit crowdless covid days.

[Proposition Joe]

Good commentary > Bad commentary > Absolutely nothing

[CEB]

Ian Wright and Alan Shearer deserve huge credit for coming out first.

[Max Fowler]

Ian Wright and Alan Shearer deserve huge credit for coming out first.

WHOA! I missed that this weekend.

[CEB]

As I typed that, I thought “should I edit?” Then thought “nah - only OFF would pick that low hanging fruit and he won’t see it as his name isn’t mentioned”

I hope you’re proud

[Max B Gold]

Analysts? Charmless gits like Alan Shearer and Ian Wright churning out the same old cliches week in, week out. " Shocking defending there, you just can't give him that much space. The full back really has to close him down much quicker than that" Do they ever say anything that is actually informative or remotely interesting?

Yes, sometimes. MotD2 better for more considered analysis but while Shearer used to be a cliche ridden joke who have the impression he didn't do any prep whatsoever, he's noticeably improved as a pundit over the years. Ditto Wright.

Regardless, you still need someone to 'host' between games and even more importantly, you have to have someone commentating. Saturdays show was all a bit crowdless covid days.

Not if its Jonathan Pierce you don't. He is an absolute tw*t.

[CEB]

I don’t think the debate arising from this should be whether football is better with or without commentary.

Besides, they should have just used FIFA 23 commentary

[Max Fowler]

I mean, Wrighty, obviously. But not Al. He likes Phil Collins and steak and chips.

[tuffers#1]

Feels like someone should say :- ^^^ Racialist

[greyhound]

he is back BBC apologised for the inconvenience.
cowards cant take the heat.
was hopping for Ian wright I like him.

[faldO]

Gary's welcomed back with open arms, Fiona's been cancelled.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64942726

[Proposition Joe]

Gary's welcomed back with open arms, Fiona's been cancelled.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64942726

Well, one of them didn't do anything wrong while the other appeared to minimise domestic violence despite being an ambassador for a domestic violence charity. And when you say "cancelled", has she been taken off presenting duties from Question Time this week? Antiques Roadshow been pulled? No.

[CEB]

^ this is why “cancelled” is mostly useless. It’s a catch all that doesn’t at all take into account when there’s a proportionate response.
Personally, while I don’t particularly like Fiona Bruce, I suspect that producers dictating into an ear piece was a factor in this, and that it’s probably unlikely to reflect her actual position on domestic violence (I doubt she’d die on the hill of “but it was only once”) - but at the same time, it’s not really easily compatible with the ambassadorial role, and so rightly there’s at least a step back while some discussion happens about whether she’s able to carry on in that role.

[Proposition Joe]

Re the Question Time thing, I do understand about the "right of reply" when allegations are disputed but in this case it didn't even sound like Johnson's "friends'" reply even denied that he broke his wife's nose, they just wanted to make clear he only did it once. So I don't really see why Bruce - or the QT producers - felt the need to add a caveat. If it's out there in public and not been denied, why the need to ride cover for him? Apart from the fact he's Boris Johnson's Dad.

[CEB]

Yeah, I agree. I think - as with Lineker - it speaks to the BBC’s institutional wobbliness/craven tendencies towards the govt

[StillSpike]

Re the Question Time thing, I do understand about the "right of reply" when allegations are disputed but in this case it didn't even sound like Johnson's "friends'" reply even denied that he broke his wife's nose, they just wanted to make clear he only did it once. So I don't really see why Bruce - or the QT producers - felt the need to add a caveat. If it's out there in public and not been denied, why the need to ride cover for him? Apart from the fact he's Boris Johnson's Dad.

The Beeb's cover/apology-not-an-apology for Bruce was clearly bullshit. If it was really her job to give right of reply in the place of someone not on the panel to every allegation made against them, she'd never be done doing so. In particular, I can't ever recall her jumping in over the top of someone who'd called Jorimolly Crombly an antisemite, shouting "of course he's not here to refute that and friends of his have stated that there's never been any ......". Of course she's not done so in the past and her intervention was entirely out of a desperation to protect Johnson (probably, as CEB suggests, encouraged by apoplectic screaming in her earpiece). To suggest that it's part of the QT chair's role to pipe up like that is insulting the intelligence of the public, and they know it.

I really, really hope she's reflecting on what she said and precisely why she did. I doubt she is. Nasty piece of work.

[BIGRON]

Re the Question Time thing, I do understand about the "right of reply" when allegations are disputed but in this case it didn't even sound like Johnson's "friends'" reply even denied that he broke his wife's nose, they just wanted to make clear he only did it once. So I don't really see why Bruce - or the QT producers - felt the need to add a caveat. If it's out there in public and not been denied, why the need to ride cover for him? Apart from the fact he's Boris Johnson's Dad.

The Beeb's cover/apology-not-an-apology for Bruce was clearly bullshit. If it was really her job to give right of reply in the place of someone not on the panel to every allegation made against them, she'd never be done doing so. In particular, I can't ever recall her jumping in over the top of someone who'd called Jorimolly Crombly an antisemite, shouting "of course he's not here to refute that and friends of his have stated that there's never been any ......". Of course she's not done so in the past and her intervention was entirely out of a desperation to protect Johnson (probably, as CEB suggests, encouraged by apoplectic screaming in her earpiece). To suggest that it's part of the QT chair's role to pipe up like that is insulting the intelligence of the public, and they know it.

I really, really hope she's reflecting on what she said and precisely why she did. I doubt she is. Nasty piece of work.

I dislike Fiona Bruce almost as much as I dislike Karen Brady

[CEB]

^ there’s the issue right there. It’s like it becomes (in some people’s eyes) open season on woman hatred once there’s a whiff of legitimacy. The focus in both these stories should really be - the Tories inhumane, nasty attitude towards human beings, and Stanley Johnson’s violent misogyny