You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
As long as he wants be paid that is ^
Ooh, how incredibly brave and edgy of him – after saying the square root of nothing over the last three weeks about either the October 7th attacks or the release of hostages
Because of course we need that as the government are doing such a bad job?
Gary Lineker makes the headlines when he challenges this government of racists and bigots, he could keep his mouth shut but chooses not to.
It would be great if the Official Opposition did more to publicly challenge the appalling racism and bigotry coming from the current government.
Sadly they appear to be scared of inevitable backlash from the right-wing press. Luckily Lineker doesn't seem to care. Many people are very grateful of that.
As long as he wants be paid that is ^
True. Or more accurately, as long he wants to present TV programmes about football on a free to air channel. He’ll make plenty of money if he leaves the BBC, plenty of possible employers who’d love to have him.
his balls are getting bigger and brassier 😉
was going to add it does feel a bit like punching down from gary lineker given the mental deficiancies of Gullis and Schapps till i was rudely interupted by the website crashing 🙂
Klunk
Free Memberhis balls are getting bigger and brassier 😉
ha ha, some great replies on there
Public lynching for a picture……..big ****ing deal , meanwhile here’s the most moral army in the world, who are happy with the conduct of their IDF goon squad keeping scorecards of headshots on civilians, kids etc whilst withholding food and medical supplies as an occupying force.
Just for reference, can anyone post a list of animals that do not represent antisemitism? Would I be safe in posting a picture of a three-toed sloth? Or is that “antisemitism” too ??
It's so absurd people can't tell the difference between actions of the government of Isreal and Judaism.
Although, technically I'm an anti-semite. I'm also anti-Christianity, and and anti-Isalm too, though, to be fair.
Just for reference, can anyone post a list of animals that do not represent antisemitism? Would I be safe in posting a picture of a three-toed sloth? Or is that “antisemitism” too ??
I think there's a right way and a wrong way of dealing with accidently posting something bigoted. Normally the denial reveals where the person's true feelings lie.
Gary Lineker basically reacted in the 'right' way. He didn't try to defend it. He didn't try to downplay it. He deleted it and apologised. And then he accepted getting fired because of it.
Seems a shame to punish decent people with principles for having principles but that's the world we live in these days.
No DrJ, but the rat is a reasonably well known one. I could post some images that go back as far as the 19th Century but won't because that would be... . I know because of my interests but wouldn't expect Gary Lineker to know or most people for that matter.
It's very sad to see someone on the side of right and good labelled an anti-semite for a repost with a symbol he was unaware of the significance of. I believe him, he knows he's on an ejector seat with people looking for an excuse to press the button.
Gary Lineker basically reacted in the 'right' way. He didn't try to defend it. He didn't try to downplay it. He deleted it and apologised. And then he accepted getting fired because of it.
This.
In a week when the prime minister has been using racist rhetoric, and racists people on STW have been defending racism as pragmatism. I believe Lineker made a genuine mistake and is an actual decent human being.
Banksy turned the rat back onto Israel with his stencil in the occupied West Bank showing a rat holding a slingshot, it was removed and ended up in a posh art gallery in Tel Aviv - so the Israeli's were fine with that rat as it was able to be auctioned/sold for money
I think using the "greedy jew" trope is bang out of order though.
It's very sad to see someone on the side of right and good labelled an anti-semite for a repost with a symbol he was unaware of the significance of. I believe him, he knows he's on an ejector seat with people looking for an excuse to press the button.
This post is the first I've heard of that symbolism and of all people, Lineker is the last person I'd expect to accusing of anythingism. He's been getting the bigots into a Right froth for years. If he's been ejected rather than standing back of his own volition then as you say, someone was waiting for an excuse.
I don't know the details of this particular case but from what I have read it would appear that the rat was used to depict zionists not Jews so I don't see a problem other than the one caused by people who deliberately and falsely insist that Judaism and Zionism are the same thing.
The overwhelming majority of people in the world who support zionism are not Jewish and pre-Holocaust most Jews were not zionist.
I was on a massive demo in Central London on Saturday in support of Palestine and as usual there was a huge presence of anti-zionist Jews including descendants of Holocaust survivors and at least one actual Holocaust survivor which I saw, I will try to post a couple of photos I took, I'm not sure why they would have a problem with zionists being depicted as rats, they certainly intensely dislike them. 
The old boy sitting down ^^ was a Holocaust survivor
This post is the first I've heard of that symbolism
Depicting your enemy/opponents/target as rats is pretty bog standard, I think the Nazi depiction of Jews as rats is probably down to just one propaganda film and one or two posters.
Here the Daily Mail appears to suggest that Muslims are like rats :
https://www.****/news/article-3321431/MAC-Europe-s-open-borders.html
It's very sad to see someone on the side of right and good labelled an anti-semite for a repost with a symbol he was unaware of the significance of. I believe him, he knows he's on an ejector seat with people looking for an excuse to press the button.
More to come from this & hopefully this will finally be the last nail in Tim Davie's career at the BBC
It's so absurd people can't tell the difference between actions of the government of Isreal and Judaism.
Eh? I thought Israel is the Jewish state? Have I got that wrong? And all those Eurovision voters were just voting for a catchy tune ?
I heard it earlier when I read this 100% completely and absolutely totally so massively unbiased article about it on the BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq54wy9jzgdo
From the above link :
Mistakenly sharing a video about Zionism which included a rat emoji was the final straw.
Someone should inform the BBC that Zionism is a political ideology, not a racial grouping.
Although the BBC obviously knows that and it simply doesn't want to upset Israel and their backers in the UK government. The last time the BBC seriously pissed off the UK government (by telling the truth concerning a dodgy dossier) its Director General ended up getting the sack.
Thanks to Tony Blair the BBC is now terrified of upsetting the government of the day.
Our press ignore this below but pile on Gary, 🤔
https://twitter.com/peterbeinart/status/1924437448387620885?s=46&t=qvPR6lBfBXtAWZ-6beFWyA
Although the BBC obviously knows that and it simply doesn't want to upset Israel and their backers in the UK government.
I don't think that's entirely fair given that just a couple of weeks ago BBC2 broadcast that Louis Theroux documentary about settler expansion and violence.
Like any organisation the BBC is staffed by people with various personal agendas. It claims to be unbiased but that's nonsense, it just has the unbias that suits. Suits whom? Well we have the boss (the King), the boss's skivies (the government) and the person appointed to run it (a mate of the skivies). then within the organisation there are the arse lickers, the fifth column, the anarchists, the fascists, th ereligious nuts... just like any sixth form common room or university concours.
The result is what we get to see, it's awful, none of the TV news channels I watch irritates more than the BBC. France 2, ZDF, Arte if I'm looking for a bias that pleases me, various 24h rolling news channels with their agendas if I want to laugh or get outraged, but none irritates more than the BBC claiming to be even handed when it's giving equal weight to feathers and plutonium.
The BBC gave Britain Gulf War 2 and Brexit. 12 million viewers, mainly ageing. If the BBC news content had been the same as Sky News content I'm convinced Brexit wouldn't have happened because Sky News didn't give equal credibility to remain facts and brexiteer lies.
And Lineker is the latest victim in the BBC's heavily biased unbias.
I don't think that's entirely fair
Well the BBC are still sitting on the “Gaza: medics under fire” documentary for no good reason, having pulled an earlier documentary on entirely spurious grounds, so it looks pretty fair to me.
I don't think that's entirely fair
Well the BBC are still sitting on the “Gaza: medics under fire” documentary for no good reason, having pulled an earlier documentary on entirely spurious grounds, so it looks pretty fair to me.
Though they have reported several pieces from medics making clear the horror they are working in, so I think we all need to be careful of only seeing one aspect of an issue.
But I agree with earlier posters, I had no idea the rat had a specific connotation. Lineker fell on his sword and can leave with his head held high for always trying to do and say the right thing that needed doing/saying.
I wonder if there's an NDA to prevent him commenting on any pressure he was put under from previous incidents
Though they have reported several pieces from medics
In a year and a half of war. Colour me impressed.
Though they have reported several pieces from medics
In a year and a half of war. Colour me impressed.
No, it comes up pretty regularly. The BBC reports a lot of the atrocities committed in Gaza. They were reporting the risks of full scale Israeli reprisals immediately after the 7/10 attacks before it had started. They report the international concerns raised about war crimes. They don't actively condemn the actions, but that is arguably outside their remit.
A lot of people happy to criticise the BBC don't appear to watch it, but twas ever thus.
(And they are not my only news source, before I'm accused of that)
Although the BBC obviously knows that and it simply doesn't want to upset Israel and their backers in the UK government.
I don't think that's entirely fair given that just a couple of weeks ago BBC2 broadcast that Louis Theroux documentary about settler expansion and violence.
Well the Louis Theroux documentary about settler expansion and violence was very much in line with UK government policy, if not Israeli government policy. Pretty much all Western governments are opposed, at least publicly, to Israel's flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, they could hardly not be! They just do practically nothing about it.
But yes I should have put more emphasis about the BBC being terrified, ever since the Director General Greg Dyke was sacked in response to the BBC telling the truth about the sexed up Iraqi dossier, of upsetting UK prime ministers rather than the Israeli government.
It really doesn't take much to upset the Israeli government! Or zionists in general. Just the very suggestion that Israel complies with international law is usually sufficient :
...perhaps he shared the tweet because he had a new job lined up that needed a sooner start date than his BBC contract allowed - so went for the dismissal/resign option!
No, it comes up pretty regularly. The BBC reports a lot of the atrocities committed in Gaza.
How do you quantify "a lot"?
IME the BBC only reports a very small minority of the atrocities being committed in Gaza by the IDF, the hard-to-ignore atrocities which get international coverage.
No, it comes up pretty regularly. The BBC reports a lot of the atrocities committed in Gaza.
How to you quantify "a lot"?
IME the BBC only reports a very small minority of the atrocities being committed in Gaza by the IDF, the hard-to-ignore atrocities which get international coverage.
Well, the news website is pretty full on this morning. The likes of Bowen and Guerlin have regularly been reporting atrocities, Bowen in particular very critical of the Israeli government, reports of the attacks and harassment by settlers has been quite common, especially through the Gaza war period.
Might not be given the prominence you would like as its clearly a cause you are passionate about, but there's a whole world of other horrors to cover (as well as utter fluff and bollocks, like all news outlets)
Might not be given the prominence you would like
That's not so much the issue for me, due to the local WhatsApp groups I'm on the atrocities that Israel is committing on a daily basis are practically livestreamed to me and frankly I refuse to read most of it (unsurprisingly it can have a profound effect on some people's mental wellbeing)
The issue I have with the BBC is firstly its reluctance to report anything which very directly criticises the far-right Israeli government, reporting an isolated atrocity which the IDF invariably dismisses as not officially sanctioned does not constitute that.
And secondly the BBC's attempt to report on the genocide in an evenhanded manner, they certainly would not be automatically doing that if it was happening in another part of the world.
That point was nicely summed up on someone's placard which I saw on Saturday's huge demo in support of Palestine, it stated "There are not two sides to a genocide"
I noticed recently that the UN spokesman who described food aid being blocked as a war crime was fairly prominent on that evening's news at six - without right of reply for an Israeli talking head, which is an improvement. Perhaps someone has finally realised that bending over backwards to provide 'balance' ends up producing imbalance.
Hopefully this sees an opportunity for GL to move into politics so we can at least have someone articulate that can appeal to the masses. An anti-Farage if you will. It won't happen but would be great if it could.
The issue I have with the BBC is firstly its reluctance to report anything which very directly criticises the far-right Israeli government, reporting an isolated atrocity which the IDF invariably dismisses as not officially sanctioned does not constitute that.
The BBC has consistently reported the attacks on schools, hospitals and other atrocities. Palestinian deaths and injuries are shown in nearly every news bulletin where They have consistently reported all the criticism from international reports of the conduct of the war, and efforts to bring war crimes charges.
I'm not sure your view of the BBCs apparent reluctance stands up frankly, but we can agree to disagree rather than move further away from Gary Lineker
No DrJ, but the rat is a reasonably well known one. I could post some images that go back as far as the 19th Century but won't because that would be... . I know because of my interests but wouldn't expect Gary Lineker to know or most people for that matter.
I'm not sure how you define reasonably well known, but I'd have thought it was contradictory to your point that you wouldn't expect most people to know.
The issue I have with the BBC is firstly its reluctance to report anything which very directly criticises the far-right Israeli government, reporting an isolated atrocity which the IDF invariably dismisses as not officially sanctioned does not constitute that.
The trouble for the BBC is they get it from both sides.
If they report on Manchester City being investigated for financial cheating then they're accused of being Anti-city-matic by City supporters. Meanwhile United supporters accuse them of being a pro-City-ist propaganda machine because they don't condemn the cheating.
It's their job to report facts, not pass judgement. I remember a while back they used to get criticized for referring to Mugabe as "President" despite losing elections. Their response was that it's their job to report the reality not to pass judgment on it.
Like any organisation the BBC is staffed by people with various personal agendas. It claims to be unbiased but that's nonsense, it just has the unbias that suits. Suits whom? Well we have the boss (the King), the boss's skivies (the government) and the person appointed to run it (a mate of the skivies). then within the organisation there are the arse lickers, the fifth column, the anarchists, the fascists, th ereligious nuts... just like any sixth form common room or university concours.
I'm certainly no Monarchist, but you think that King Charles III dictates the BBC agenda? On Israel/Palestine where does Charles sit? Then we have the government, a different government from the one that was in play when this thread started. And the DG of the BBC who you describe as a mate of the government. The current DG has been in post since the Borris days. Seems unlikely he is a "mate of the Starmer gov", especially since he stood as a Tory councellor and held local positions within the party...
Your post sounds a lot like the sort of nonsense talking in sixth form common rooms!
The BBC have been no where near balanced and fair in their reporting of the genocide in Gaza, it's a complete revisionist fantasy to pretend they have. Even many of their own journalists protested at the clear and obvious bias in the BBC's editorial policy.
Even without moving into politics proper, he might be inclined to be more vocal now, which ironically would upset those who sought to quash him for the past several years. None of his vocal critics cared if the BBC appeared impartial - they cared that he had an audience for words they didn't like.Hopefully this sees an opportunity for GL to move into politics so we can at least have someone articulate that can appeal to the masses. An anti-Farage if you will. It won't happen but would be great if it could.
Loads of things that are reasonably well known but most people don't know. In cycling circles it's reasonably well known who won the 1980 world road title (and often where) but most people don't. Most people know **** all compared with the total wealth of human knowledge, even stuff that's well-known, this forum proves it regularly. But if pedantry pleases you go ahead. 🙂
In my mind the rat-jew association made me think of the Dreyfus affair and anti-semitic memes of the period, and Nazi propaganda.
The BBC operates under a royal charter and has been doing simpering, kneeling, courtseying, boot licking, complicit bollocks about the royals for as long as I've been watching TV.
Some civil servants and directors of public companies are excellent at licking the boots of PMs whatever the colour of their tie, pale blue in Starmer's case, perfect fit, no need to appoint a new DG.
I'm not saying anything especially controversial on this thread but once again I'm the only target of your personal attacks, have fun Poly.
Your post sounds a lot like the sort of nonsense talking in sixth form common rooms!
I'm the only target of your personal attacks, have fun Poly.
To be fair you're less in danger of sounding like a 6th form common room at the moment and more like those British pubs in Malaga where everyone repeats 3rd hand opinions of how Britain's gone downhill.
That's not an attack, thisisnotaspoon, that's funny, or many a true word spoken in jest. Not that I've ever been in a British pub in Malaga (though I hitched through Malaga and have distant Spanish relatives who live there) and recently spent 10 days in Brum which gave me a tourist's eye view of how far downhill it's gone.
When I left there were still no university fees and some students got grants, my last visit to the dentists was a free check up, the UK was in the EU and most people seemed very pleased with the freedom of movement that provided, my parents were still voting Labour, Welsh Water where I worked hadn't been privatised and there was a programme of investment aimed at meeting European normes that was constantly improving all aspects of water quality, people at work were buying their own home on an affordable 25-year mortgage, British rail was still a public company - the train to Aberystwyth whilst a bit scruffy was cheap and ran to time, riding a bike on the road could still be a pleasure with very few punishment passes or deliberate aggression, apart from the Falklands Britain hadn't joined in any unjustifiable wars... .
If I stopped typing for a few minutes I'd think of more but I think that's all the proof you need that I view the Britain I left in the way my parents view the mid 50s. It was a bit shit but a whole lot less shit than what young Brits face today.
Sorry to hijack your thread Mr Lineker, you are one of the Brits I enjoyed watching and listening to over the years. Born the same year as me, scored lots of goals for England in Mexico, pertinant commentry on football and more recently on social media.
accidently posting something bigoted not bigoted at all but disingenuously claimed to be so by people with a clear agenda of distracting from their starving of babies
FTFY
FTFY
That right there is an example of how not to react when accused of bigotry, even if the bigotry is relatively minor and not necessarily well known.
Getting into an argument about symbolism is never going to result in someone being seen in a good light. I suspect Gary Lineker understood this and chose the right path.
He's the only one coming out of this with any dignity. He can now focus on talking about the starving babies rather than a picture of a rat.
That right there is an example of how not to react when accused of bigotry, even if the bigotry is relatively minor and not necessarily well known
Could be. I'll bear that in mind when I'm presenting MOTD. I had assumed a smiley face would be stating the obvious. Perhaps not.
I didn't see a smiley.
But my point still stands. If, at any time, you find yourself debating a picture of a rat when it comes to anything even tangentially related to Gaza then you've allowed yourself to get drawn into the wrong debate.
Much like I have here.
Yeah, he didn't notice a rat emoji when retweeting about Gaza. He's a bright bloke and a very very savvy media operator, he obviously understood the significance and knew he'd messed up. And not just by playing into the hands of his various right wing enemies and also anyone who wants to distract from what the Israeli govt is doing.
I am genuinely surprised by the ignorance of some of the posts on this thread.
Loads of things that are reasonably well known but most people don't know. In cycling circles it's reasonably well known who won the 1980 world road title (and often where) but most people don't.I'll once again suggest that means its not reasonably well known. I wasn't trying to be a dick - I was suggesting your post would be much clearer if it didn't seem contradictory. If you mean its not a secret code known only to a select few, but it isn't widely known to those without specialist interests probably better to say that. Some of those who criticised him have almost implied that not knowing the link is in itself basically antisemitic, and nobody who isn't an expert on Israel should ever be allowed to comment on their behaviour. I don't think that was your intent, but suggesting it is widely known suggests the onus was on him to know it.
The BBC operates under a royal charterI think Andrew might suggest it doesn't actually bring any advantage! Royal charters are a bit of a weird constitutional anomaly - in essence they are just a way of formally establishing an entity as being on behalf of the country rather than shareholders etc. I was once a trustee of an organisation with a royal charter - in my 3 years serving on its governing council not once did the views of Elizabeth ever come into the discussion.
I don't know why, but for some reason that is actually representative of a large part of the country - particularly home counties; perhaps nostalgic types who remember how britain used to be; etc. But even in rough parts of Scotland there's a weird reverence to royalty. That does not make the king the boss of the BBC as you described him.and has been doing simpering, kneeling, courtseying, boot licking, complicit bollocks about the royals for as long as I've been watching TV.
I don't think you mean public companies - perhaps you means state owned corporations or QANGOS. However Starmer doesn't appoint the DG, and certainly can't fire him easily. Officially at least the DG is independently appointed.Some civil servants and directors of public companies are excellent at licking the boots of PMs whatever the colour of their tie, pale blue in Starmer's case, perfect fit, no need to appoint a new DG.
Was it a person attack suggesting that your ramble was like the very analogy you used? I never had you down as being so sensitive. If anyone else leaves the goal open I'll happily take the piss out their ramblings.I'm not saying anything especially controversial on this thread but once again I'm the only target of your personal attacks, have fun Poly.
Thank you for putting so much thought and effort into your reply to my posts, Poly. My ramblings are written for the context of where they appear, a bike forum, where a good deal of the material is of sixth form common room standard, and the place is a lot richer for it. When standing up in court giving evidence I was more economical and pricise with words but here rambling is what most people do, including your good self. 🙂
Anything to say about Gary? The post I made to bump the thread yesterday was all I really wanted to contribute to the thread so the rest probably is rambling, if nobody rambled there would be 4-week-old posts on the front page rather than 4-day-old.
If you want to see my ernest side check out threads on geology, water, atmospheric pollution and climate change. On subjects such as pliocene levels of CO2 and what that means in terms of climate I'm as fussy as you are about the BBC.
I'm not sure your view of the BBCs apparent reluctance stands up frankly
Just watched the BBC lunchtime news. Nothing about Gaza. Yesterday's news, obviously.
I'm not sure your view of the BBCs apparent reluctance stands up frankly
Just watched the BBC lunchtime news. Nothing about Gaza. Yesterday's news, obviously.
BBC News moves on shocker. Did you miss last night's news at 10 when they led with Starmer and Lammy ramping it up, and reports with a British surgeon working over there? Or does that not suit your position?
BBC News moves on shocker
With the United Nations declaring that fourteen thousand babies are at risk of dying of starvation in Gaza the next few hours the Gaza blockade story is currently one of the most important international global news stories, the news hasn't moved on at all.
And it is not only punters on here who are highly critical of the BBC's poor reporting of the Gaza genocide, an extremely high level of criticism has come from BBC staff themselves, people who are more aware of the BBC's output than most.
Signatories include STW's favourite Tory Sayeeda Warsi.
I suspect this probably best sums up how many BBC staff feel :
“I have never, in my entire career, witnessed such low levels of staff confidence,” they said. “I have colleagues who have left the BBC in recent months because they just don’t believe our reporting on Israel and Palestine is honest. So many of us feel paralysed by the levels of fear.”
Are they still criticising the Beeb six months after that report?
BBC News moves on shocker. Did you miss last night's news at 10 when they led with Starmer and Lammy ramping it up, and reports with a British surgeon working over there? Or does that not suit your position?
No, I didn't miss coverage of a major statement in Parliament. And now we're back to ignoring the killing of hundreds of Palestinians.
I'm just listening to the Media Show on R4 - a hatchet job on Lineker by the talentless numpty Steve Ryder.
Regardless of how well they report overall, not mentioning it at the lunchtime news is not ignoring it. It's pretty normal for news stories to be headline news when something new happens but to fall down the list a bit in the meantime, even if it's still ongoing.
Example Ukraine - I never hear daily bulletins of what happened. If there's a big attack or some political statement then it hits the news, then vanishes until something else happens. Same with everything.
If I go to the BBC news website, their live feed on Gaza is right there at the top of the homepage, plus articles in the sidebar on every page.
Example Ukraine - I never hear daily bulletins of what happened. If there's a big attack or some political statement then it hits the news,
Then it’s clearly not the same as Gaza. There are bigger attacks on Gaza EVERY DAY, with higher death tolls than even a big drone attack on Kiev. The UN warned of kids starving to death within days, but they will die in the dark. Really, this is so blatant it’s hardly worth discussing.
your obsession
Yeah, I'm obsessed with kids being blown to bits, starved, limbs amputated. My bad.
If you want to vote for Gary Linker as best presenter in the Nationsl TV awards, you can - you don't have to vote in any category you don't want to.
https://www.nationaltvawards.com/vote
"Your obsession"?
There is a current ongoing situation in which the United Nations is very clearly claiming that the Israeli government is deliberately causing starvation through their blockade of aid, and in which 14,000 babies are at risk of dying within hours, and you think someone is suffering from an "obsession" if they argue that the issue shouldn't drop out of the news??
Whatever next....... how about accusing them of anti-semitism and being Hamas supporters? I am sure that is precisely how the Israeli government would describe anyone "obsessed" with such things.
And just to be clear what we are talking about (I could only watch about half of the video, I wouldn't expect anyone to watch it all)
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-05-20/uk-france-and-canada-condemn-israels-egregious-actions-in-gaza
The thing is,
The media is in the business of selling news. There's only so many times you can report the same thing before people start going "Gaza again? Sod this, what's on ITV?" In my world we call this "alert fatigue." You become numb to it, bored even.
Gaza isn't news. Ukraine isn't news. Palestine isn't news. They're olds. "The same shit that happened yesterday happened again today" doesn't sell newspapers, unless you're the Daily Express who has been dining out on immigration fury, Madeleine McCann and fictional weather forecasts for decades.
[Mod] Everyone, Gaza thread here and please use it as appropriate rather than duplicating discussions. Thank you.
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/off-topic/gaza-2
The media is in the business of selling news.
I would have thought, or at least hoped, that the BBC unlike many news providers wasn't primarily driven by that consideration.
Indeed I would hope that all the major television broadcasters are primarily driven by the need to inform and educate when it comes to providing a news service.
Thanks for the link, Pondo. Vote Lineker ! And I took the opportunity to vote for a few other programmes as well that make it onto French and German TV channels. In over half the categories I hadn't a clue who/what any of them were.