One recent example being Lineker showing the most basic level of humanity nearly getting him fired because it went against these cunts narrative. Lineker is not someone I’d count as a radical…
Lineker expressed an opinion that was political in nature. This goes against BBC rules for presenters specifically created so that all presenters can be seen to be impartial. You can argue the rule is stupid (probably correct for a sports presenter that is not involved in news) and you can argue that his opinion was correct (the HomeOffice policy is utterly shit) but if you’re arguing that by applying their own impartiality rules as they were written they are somehow in hock with the government is laughably reaching into conspiracy theory land.
Thinking this is some twitter conspiracy crap is either disingenuous or you need to touch grass.
Feel free to provide some evidence that isn’t “the BBC don’t cover things I am interested in therefore they must be biased”.
Nah, I’m not going to bother providing a lit review. You’re whole response is bad faith or I’ll ill-informed given you don’t seem to know that they were specifically called out for being very selective in there enforcement of said impartially rule, or you are also being selective… c:
Obviously your burden of proof seems very low. Everything is wrong and bad faith if it disagrees with your point of view: there’s absolutely no room for explanation I must be ill informed. Fair enough. I don’t think we’ll agree here. Have a great day 🌷.
Lineker expressed an opinion that was political in nature. This goes against BBC rules for presenters specifically created so that all presenters can be seen to be impartial. You can argue the rule is stupid (probably correct for a sports presenter that is not involved in news) and you can argue that his opinion was correct (the HomeOffice policy is utterly shit) but if you’re arguing that by applying their own impartiality rules as they were written they are somehow in hock with the government is laughably reaching into conspiracy theory land.
Feel free to provide some evidence that isn’t “the BBC don’t cover things I am interested in therefore they must be biased”.
Nah, I’m not going to bother providing a lit review. You’re whole response is bad faith or I’ll ill-informed given you don’t seem to know that they were specifically called out for being very selective in there enforcement of said impartially rule, or you are also being selective… c:
Obviously your burden of proof seems very low. Everything is wrong and bad faith if it disagrees with your point of view: there’s absolutely no room for explanation I must be ill informed. Fair enough. I don’t think we’ll agree here. Have a great day 🌷.