Thats ok mate... Your entitled to disagree with it..
I have never disagreed more with a post. Other than those by Grendel.
I would think that he stopped the CCFC corporate work when he got the BBC gig but maybe Stuart would like to clarify that for me - I wouldn't want to be wrong. That would also explain why it no longer appears on his website.Surely he couldn't physically host 2 things at the same game / time?
Surely he couldn't physically host 2 things at the same game / time?
The guy is mostly ok... How do you know everyone on sbt is a city fan? Maybe he is proSisu, but that's ok, yes he shouldn't air his personal views on the radio, but these are tense times for all city fans and we all have our views on the situation.
Maybe your point would be more valid if your didn't call people names and go in for character assassination just because someone dose not agree with your point of view.
It's sisu for crippling the club(with the help of previous regimes) ... ACL for robbing us of the chance of getting into the playoffs...
Is the guy taking the flack because he is the only person you can attack, I mean you can't get at Joyce seppala and even if you could she wouldn't give a damn.
Maybe you should organise a survey for the next home game to find out if the majority of fans who attend games really want sisu out ... Then you could deliver it to him
Say what you will about the quality of Linnell's broadcasting, but this 'SISU puppet' stuff is just more paranoid horseshit from the usual suspects.
I didn't see such accusations being lobbed around when he was crucifying callers & texters who wanted Thorn out ...
I don't actually have a problem with him airing his personal views, what I do have a problem with is his dismissive approach to anyone who questions Sisu. Also then to state that I'm 'ill informed' because of my opinion, and to tell me I'm in a minority is wrong.
Reminds me of when a real city legend John Sillett dared to say something the mob didn't like.
He was labelled a sisu puppet as well wasn't he?
Reminds me of when a real city legend John Sillett dared to say something the mob didn't like.
He was labelled a sisu puppet as well wasn't he?
I don't actually have a problem with him airing his personal views, what I do have a problem with is his dismissive approach to anyone who questions Sisu. Also then to state that I'm 'ill informed' because of my opinion, and to tell me I'm in a minority is wrong.
Make your own minds up on Stuart after reading that.4.2.1
We must do all we can to ensure that 'controversial subjects' are treated with due impartiality in all our output.
4.2.2
News in whatever form must be treated with due impartiality, giving due weight to events, opinion and main strands of argument.
4.2.3
We seek to provide a broad range of subject matter and perspectives over an appropriate timeframe across our output as a whole.
4.2.4
We are committed to reflecting a wide range of opinion across our output as a whole and over an appropriate timeframe so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented.
4.2.5
We exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate, as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so.
4.4.5
We must apply due impartiality to all our subject matter. However, there are particular requirements for 'controversial subjects', whenever they occur in any output, including drama, entertainment and sport.
A 'controversial subject' may be a matter of public policy or political or industrial controversy. It may also be a controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics and other matters entirely.
4.4.6
In determining whether subjects are controversial, we should take account of:
the level of public and political contention and debate
how topical the subjects are
sensitivity in terms of relevant audiences' beliefs and culture
whether the subjects are matters of intense debate or importance in a particular nation, region or discrete area likely to comprise at least a significant part of the audience
a reasonable view on whether the subjects are serious
the distinction between matters grounded in fact and those which are a matter of opinion.
Advice on whether subjects are 'controversial' is available from Editorial Policy.
4.4.7
When dealing with 'controversial subjects', we must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly when the controversy is active. Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact.
(See Section 4 Impartiality:4.4.2)
4.4.8
Due impartiality normally allows for programmes and other output to explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed. When dealing with 'controversial subjects' this should be clearly signposted, should acknowledge that a range of views exists and the weight of those views, and should not misrepresent them.
Consideration should be given to the appropriate timeframe for reflecting other perspectives and whether or not they need to be included in connected and signposted output.
If such output contains serious allegations, a right of reply may be required, either as part of the same output, or in a connected and clearly signposted alternative.
4.4.29
The BBC has a tradition of allowing a wide range of individuals, groups or organisations to offer a personal view or opinion, express a belief, or advance a contentious argument in its output. This can range from the outright expression of highly partial views by a campaigner, to the opinion of a specialist or professional including an academic or scientist, to views expressed through contributions from our audiences. All of these can add to the public understanding and debate, especially when they allow our audience to hear fresh and original perspectives on familiar issues.
Such personal view content must be clearly signposted to audiences in advance.
4.4.30
Additionally, when personal view programmes and websites (for example, blogs) cover 'controversial subjects', especially those concerning matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy, we should:
retain a respect for factual accuracy
fairly represent opposing viewpoints when included
provide an opportunity to respond when appropriate, for example in a pre-arranged discussion programme
(See Section 6 Fairness, Contributors and Consent: 6.4.25 - 6.4.27)
ensure that a sufficiently broad range of views and perspectives is included in output of a similar type and weight and in an appropriate timeframe.
4.4.31
BBC staff and regular BBC presenters or reporters associated with news or public policy-related output may offer professional judgements rooted in evidence. However, it is not normally appropriate for them to present or write personal view programmes and content on public policy, on matters of political or industrial controversy, or on 'controversial subjects' in any area.
I've made that point above! He quietly re-alligned himself after his fave had been sacked, now he basically argues their point. He's absolutely atrocious at his job.
I don't know about re-alignment. He just strikes me as an opinionated, Daily Mail sort.
I've got no issue with any BBC broadcaster playing devil's advocate - and thus they should be defending SISU more often than not. It's just the quiet insults that won't do and betray a lack of impartiality ("if you think AT is a good manager then you know nothing about football")
I don't actually have a problem with him airing his personal views, what I do have a problem with is his dismissive approach to anyone who questions Sisu. Also then to state that I'm 'ill informed' because of my opinion, and to tell me I'm in a minority is wrong.
Non league of course agrees with linell about thorn.
Didn't hear everything on the phone in and don't have time to listen again just yet, which I why I said people who did hear everything should make their minds up. Basically if he wasn't giving an equal standing to both sides, the pro and anti SISU groups then he may well have broken something. The impression I get from reading these posts is that if you were anti SISU you were given less airtime, I don't know if that is correct though.Posting the BBC guidelines is all well and good, but what has he said about SISU or to the callers that breaks those guidelines? Not saying he hasn't ... would just like to see it in print.
That he was shafted by SISU, absolutely I think he was. What I'm highlighting here is how disingenuous and hypocritical of him it is to be their number one cheer-leader (after you, natch) now having blamed them for relegation and said Thorn's sacking was unjustified. And you think all of Thorn's signings were crap, whereas today shows that many were totally under/mis-used..
Shit lets not get it round to thorn, i thought we were past that now!
Fortunately we are past the useless blubbering piece of lard. However isn't it interesting that the majority of those who craved administration also worshipped the ground thorn walked on. What does that say?
Who cares either way? I never listen to his show - not out of any strong feeling, more apathy....couldn't care less
I bet he has a username on here or at least lurks/reads. Who do we think most suits his profile? (Just for fun)
I bet he has a username on here or at least lurks/reads. Who do we think most suits his profile? (Just for fun)
He's probably psgm1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/p0166qdt
Some good stuff before 28mins but after that is when Stuart Linnell makes his comments.
That would be pr genius!
Lets be careful - as it appears Mr Linnell is in a litigious mood.
TODAY I attempted to contact your radio show @ 17:51 29/03/13 - NO one picked up the phone!
I GENUINELY believed that you were paid by SISU for the after match experience in corporate section. I believed thism because I saw on your webpage (before you re-vamped) that what you said you did (as part of your self promotion). If I was wrong - I am wrong and have no probs retrtacting errors!
But Will YOU retract what you said when you called ANYONE who thought Andy Thorn should be sacked an idiot? The BBC staff noted at the time you did say that, it was unusual. Do you still believe they are idiots?
Also what do you mean by real sky blue fans? Because some don't follow the club in PRECISELY the same way as you does that make them false fans? Are people in the armed forces not real fans if they don't go to every game?
Will you retract that statement?
To be honest I have wasted far more effort on this guy than it is worth. I certainly don't hev to justify myself to this guy!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?