By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Obviously there are many polarised views about Gary Lineker. Whatever your views about immigration and asylum seekers and economic migrants, surely we should all be concerned at the way the BBC has been quietly taken over by the Tories. A few years back there was a feeling that the Beeb was left leaning. It seems as though there has been a concerted effort as part of the cultural war to ensure that the centre/moderate view has shifted significantly rightwards to the point that we have now arrived at. Censorship of free speech of anyone employed (including freelancers/ contractors) by the Beeb. Not just Lineker, but David Attenborough and the programme he produced which doesn't sit well with Tory policy. This is big stuff. The Beeb of course is funded by licence payers. It should be politically neutral and has been the envy of the world. It is now sliding away from neutrality into a narrative that has to support Tory policy. Even if it was going the other way to supporting Left policies, I would be concerned. A world where you can't trust the news from the Beeb because every message, including private views of employees and contractors has had to be checked and approved by the managers (working for a Tory party donor), is something that should worry every person that values free speech. Maybe this is a tipping point. The great thing Lineker has done (and he is not a saint) is to shine a light on the fact that the Beeb is not neutral/impartial, it has been silently taken over by the right. Lets hope enough of the public are sufficiently outraged to bring about some real change in the way the Beeb is run.
It is one thing to express a political opinion but comparing the actions of an elected government to Nazi Germans is out of order and bordering in hate speech. Lineker appears to have signed a contract agreeing he will not speak out of turn . If he values the right to say whatever he wants, when’re he wants he should walk away.
Others taking action in support of him is getting out of hand, what next Phil Ham refusing to doLife’s a Pitch.
It is one thing to express a political opinion but comparing the actions of an elected government to Nazi Germans is out of order and bordering in hate speech. Lineker appears to have signed a contract agreeing he will not speak out of turn . If he values the right to say whatever he wants, when’re he wants he should walk away.
Others taking action in support of him is getting out of hand, what next Phil Ham refusing to doLife’s a Pitch.
An arrogant fool who thinks he can do as he pleases. He is an ex footballer, without the BBC, I doubt he would even be selling crisps.
An arrogant fool who thinks he can do as he pleases. He is an ex footballer, without the BBC, I doubt he would even be selling crisps.
What's the relevance with his views on the government though?
Regardless what you think of him as a person, it's hard to disagree with what he has said, even if you think it's a good thing, it's undoubtedly true.
No idea when I began here, was a very long time ago. Previously known as Spirit_of_81. Love cheese, hate the colour of it, this is why it requires some blue in it.
It is one thing to express a political opinion but comparing the actions of an elected government to Nazi Germans is out of order and bordering in hate speech. Lineker appears to have signed a contract agreeing he will not speak out of turn . If he values the right to say whatever he wants, when’re he wants he should walk away.
Others taking action in support of him is getting out of hand, what next Phil Ham refusing to doLife’s a Pitch.
The main issue with this whole argument is people don’t actually know what Lineker tweeted and also don’t know their history. Although I suppose it’s in the Government’s interest for their supporters to spread a false narrative. I’ve even seen left-leaning commentators say he called the Tories Nazis. We’ve got a major issue with accuracy and truth in our media and in the public discourse on social media.
Personally I think it’s great that lots of people support human rights for all humans.
But several of them (including Yvette Cooper) have said that Lineker was wrong to say what he did, which I don't regard as standing up for him.
Indeed, the Labour have been very careful to merely say that the Tory proposals are unworkable (or that they've broken the asylum system), and, so far as I am aware, have said nothing about the proposals breaching international conventions or straying into zenophobia and the like.
It is one thing to express a political opinion but comparing the actions of an elected government to Nazi Germans is out of order and bordering in hate speech. Lineker appears to have signed a contract agreeing he will not speak out of turn . If he values the right to say whatever he wants, when’re he wants he should walk away.
Others taking action in support of him is getting out of hand, what next Phil Ham refusing to doLife’s a Pitch.
Read up about the Madagascar Plan, and realise you've got this entirely wrong.
Read up about the Madagascar Plan, and realise you've got this entirely wrong.
Doomed to failure that plan was. Marty should have kept his stupid dreams to himself, as there was no way Marty and friends were ready to survive outside captivity as they were just a bunch of pansies.
(Spot on. Scary parallels. I disagree with the OP that the BBC issue is what we should be focusing on. It’s a bigger issue than a presenter’s tweet of course, but this proposed Bill is by far the bigger concern).
But several of them (including Yvette Cooper) have said that Lineker was wrong to say what he did, which I don't regard as standing up for him.
Indeed, the Labour have been very careful to merely say that the Tory proposals are unworkable (or that they've broken the asylum system), and, so far as I am aware, have said nothing about the proposals breaching international conventions or straying into zenophobia and the like.
[Post edited 11 Mar 2023 17:24]
You said, "the Labour Party haven't even stood up for Lineker". I posted a link where Kier Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, literally sticks up for him. Not really sure what else you need.
There will no doubt be a few who don't support him, not everyone will in any large group. But that's hardly the same as "the Labour Party haven't even stood up for Lineker."
You said, "the Labour Party haven't even stood up for Lineker". I posted a link where Kier Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, literally sticks up for him. Not really sure what else you need.
There will no doubt be a few who don't support him, not everyone will in any large group. But that's hardly the same as "the Labour Party haven't even stood up for Lineker."
Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult (and maybe I'm being semantic) but as a member of the Labour Party, I am conscious of the language the party uses, and it is clear to me that the Labour Party is carefully choosing its words, and is not wanting to endorse what Lineker actually said.
That seems to me to not amount to proper support for Lineker, although now he has been suspended, they are opposing his suspension. But even the headline to the link you posted (BBC got Lineker row badly wrong) could be said to be as much a mild attack on the BBC.
Anyway, you and I are on the same page on this, so that is all that really matters.
The Nazi Party in 1930s Germany were an elected government. People didn't speak out then, and look where that got us! We need to learn from History and nip fascism in the bud wherever it could be festering.
That's not entirely true. The election of November 1932 left the nazis and the Communists holding 50% of the seats between them, maintaining a political impasse. Several weeks of political machinations persuaded the Reichspresident (the doddery General von Hindenburg) that hitler would be a safe appointment.
What followed was demonstrably a seizure of power, in which the nazis took over government at every level.
All entirely legallly, of course. Anything is legal if you pass a law making it so.
Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult (and maybe I'm being semantic) but as a member of the Labour Party, I am conscious of the language the party uses, and it is clear to me that the Labour Party is carefully choosing its words, and is not wanting to endorse what Lineker actually said.
That seems to me to not amount to proper support for Lineker, although now he has been suspended, they are opposing his suspension. But even the headline to the link you posted (BBC got Lineker row badly wrong) could be said to be as much a mild attack on the BBC.
Anyway, you and I are on the same page on this, so that is all that really matters.
I think the Labour Party are careful about their words whatever the topic, and rightly so. No point putting a target on your back. Not sure that quite means they're not standing up for him, but yeah, generally we're on the same page.
He compared the language being used, not the actions. Just like this Holocaust survivor did directly to Braverman:
(As I posted on the other thread)
She of course apologises for something she wasn't asked to apologise for. It's a bit like your mum asking you to apologise for pulling your younger sister's ponytail, and responding by saying that you won't apologise for the length of your sister's hair.
(There's probably a better analogy, but I can't think of one, and it's almost time to watch the charming and talented Fiona Bruce on Antiques Roadshow.)
That's not entirely true. The election of November 1932 left the nazis and the Communists holding 50% of the seats between them, maintaining a political impasse. Several weeks of political machinations persuaded the Reichspresident (the doddery General von Hindenburg) that hitler would be a safe appointment.
What followed was demonstrably a seizure of power, in which the nazis took over government at every level.
All entirely legallly, of course. Anything is legal if you pass a law making it so.
"Anything is legal if you pass a law making it so."
Doesn't that ring alarmingly true of the present Government under all of its past few leaders since it was last elected?
"Two months ago, the Prime Minister made a promise to the British people that any Jew entering this country illegally will be detained and swiftly removed–no half measures. The Illegal Jews Bill will fulfil that promise. It will allow us to stop the boats that are bringing tens of thousands to our shores in flagrant breach of both our laws and the will of the British people.
For a Government not to respond to the waves of Jews breaching our borders would be to betray the will of the people we were elected to serve.
The Jewish problem is part of a larger global Jewish crisis. In the coming years, developed countries will face unprecedented pressure from ever greater numbers of Jewd leaving the developing world for places such as the United Kingdom. Unless we act today, the Jewish problem will be worse tomorrow, and the Jewish problem is already unsustainable.
This Bill enables the detention of illegal Jews, without bail or judicial review within the first 28 days of detention, until they can be removed. It puts a duty on the Home Secretary to remove illegal Jews and will radically narrow the number of challenges and appeals that can suspend removal."
Seems that swapping the references in Cruella's speech from Migrants to Jews sounds pretty 1930s.
Let's compare to some German:
"The German people are famously a fair and patient people. But their sense of fair play has been tested beyond its limits as they have seen the country taken for a ride. Their patience has run out. The law-abiding patriotic majority have said, “Enough is enough.” This cannot and will not continue. Their Government–this Government–must act decisively, must act with determination, must act with compassion, and must act with proportion. Make no mistake: this National Socialist Government–their Fuhrer–will act now to stop the Jewish menace.
[Post edited 11 Mar 2023 11:44]
I’ve been reading a lot of chat from Jewish people over the weekend and there has been quite a bit of pushback against Gary Lineker’s comparisons with 1930’s Germany. Their main point is that Braverman’s actions are more akin to the actions of the British government government leading up to 1939, who turned their back on German Jews attempting to flee the inevitable, than that of the Nazis themselves They’ve been using the same link you’ve just posted.
They are saying that the Jewish community in 1930’s Germany were not refugees or immigrants, but fully intergraded German citizens leading up to Kristallnacht.
Their point being that comparisons with what happened to Jews in 1930’s Germany reinforces the point that they didn’t belong there in the first place and were not real Germans. I get that.
The British government shamefully turned their backs on Jewish refugees trying to escape the horrors of Life under the Nazis. The government of today is turning its back on desperate people attempting to flee war, violence and persecution.
Regardless of the nuance in the above argument. Gary Lineker is right to highlight this government’s demonisation of migrants and refugees.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
