FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Lineker to step back
Lineker to step back
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hypocrisy! People who work(ed) for the BBC and were not asked to step down despite direct links with the Tory party... Andrew Neil (Right-wing Spector magazine) Richard Sharp (Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak advisor) Tim Davie (Former Tory Councillor) Robbie Gibb (Former Director of Communications for Theresa May) etc...!" This hypocrisy goes both ways. Labour has not shirked in the past from political appointees to the BBC in order to control it for their own ends and ensure it is friendly to them and not any opposition party. A pox of all political houses left and right in the UK who know all too well that it is impossible to leave an organisation like the BBC to be nonpartisan in nature. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hypocrisy! People who work(ed) for the BBC and were not asked to step down despite direct links with the Tory party... Andrew Neil (Right-wing Spector magazine) Richard Sharp (Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak advisor) Tim Davie (Former Tory Councillor) Robbie Gibb (Former Director of Communications for Theresa May) etc...!" Were all the people you mentioned, BBC presenters and if they were did they offer personal opinion on political policies outside the editorial guidelines lines of the BBC? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hypocrisy! People who work(ed) for the BBC and were not asked to step down despite direct links with the Tory party... Andrew Neil (Right-wing Spector magazine) Richard Sharp (Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak advisor) Tim Davie (Former Tory Councillor) Robbie Gibb (Former Director of Communications for Theresa May) etc...! This hypocrisy goes both ways. Labour has not shirked in the past from political appointees to the BBC in order to control it for their own ends and ensure it is friendly to them and not any opposition party. A pox of all political houses left and right in the UK who know all too well that it is impossible to leave an organisation like the BBC to be nonpartisan in nature. " OR perhaps allow a public funded broadcaster to be a broad church and present different views and beliefs while maintaining objective accuracy. The language being used by the likes of Sue Ellen is without any shadow of a doubt reflective of the language used by the Nazis in the 1930s. It is inarguable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had some strong opinions on whether Lineker was right or wrong to comment on political policy by the government to stop small boat crossings and deport anyone entering the UK using this method of entry. Many voices were defensive of his right to say what he wants, claiming he is a football commentator and the issue had nothing at all to do with his job as a football commentator. It was highlighted he was a representative of the BBC and he will have a contractual obligation to not get embroiled in political opinion as a BBC presenter. The BBC has pulled Lineker as he will not abide by those rules and will continue to use his social media to amplify his political beliefs. Are the BBC wrong? " No, the BBC we're not wrong. They have been under guidance to reduce "left wing" commentators and comedians. So they have done. What's crazy is that wanting compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves is not seen as lefty, woke, etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had some strong opinions on whether Lineker was right or wrong to comment on political policy by the government to stop small boat crossings and deport anyone entering the UK using this method of entry. Many voices were defensive of his right to say what he wants, claiming he is a football commentator and the issue had nothing at all to do with his job as a football commentator. It was highlighted he was a representative of the BBC and he will have a contractual obligation to not get embroiled in political opinion as a BBC presenter. The BBC has pulled Lineker as he will not abide by those rules and will continue to use his social media to amplify his political beliefs. Are the BBC wrong? No, the BBC we're not wrong. They have been under guidance to reduce "left wing" commentators and comedians. So they have done. What's crazy is that wanting compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves is not seen as lefty, woke, etc. " *Now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this the cancel culture I hear so often about? The BBC didnt seem as bothered about politicsl commentary on Qatar ... Why did only this tweet lead to this decision.... Also, the BBC are also not airing a Attenborough episode on climate change for feat of Tory backlash (allegedly). All a bit embarrassing tbh. " Careful someone will try to point out the sixth episode is still going to available of iPlayer and something about it being commissioned on top of the main series from RSPB and WWF (even though The Telegraph already criticised the BBC for working with charities with a left wing lobbying bias (apparently). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had some strong opinions on whether Lineker was right or wrong to comment on political policy by the government to stop small boat crossings and deport anyone entering the UK using this method of entry. Many voices were defensive of his right to say what he wants, claiming he is a football commentator and the issue had nothing at all to do with his job as a football commentator. It was highlighted he was a representative of the BBC and he will have a contractual obligation to not get embroiled in political opinion as a BBC presenter. The BBC has pulled Lineker as he will not abide by those rules and will continue to use his social media to amplify his political beliefs. Are the BBC wrong? No, the BBC we're not wrong. They have been under guidance to reduce "left wing" commentators and comedians. So they have done. What's crazy is that wanting compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves is not seen as lefty, woke, etc. " Do you really now that or think that? Is the BBC collapsing under its own guidelines of impartiality, or is it right to say we are impartial so are presenters or staff need to show that company value too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hypocrisy! People who work(ed) for the BBC and were not asked to step down despite direct links with the Tory party... Andrew Neil (Right-wing Spector magazine) Richard Sharp (Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak advisor) Tim Davie (Former Tory Councillor) Robbie Gibb (Former Director of Communications for Theresa May) etc...! Were all the people you mentioned, BBC presenters and if they were did they offer personal opinion on political policies outside the editorial guidelines lines of the BBC? " Is that rhetorical? They don’t have to be presenters to have influence snd editorial control! Question for you... was the thing Lineker actually said wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hypocrisy! People who work(ed) for the BBC and were not asked to step down despite direct links with the Tory party... Andrew Neil (Right-wing Spector magazine) Richard Sharp (Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak advisor) Tim Davie (Former Tory Councillor) Robbie Gibb (Former Director of Communications for Theresa May) etc...! Were all the people you mentioned, BBC presenters and if they were did they offer personal opinion on political policies outside the editorial guidelines lines of the BBC? Is that rhetorical? They don’t have to be presenters to have influence snd editorial control! Question for you... was the thing Lineker actually said wrong?" I’m the BBC in this, you pointed a finger and I would like to know if they are in the same boat as Lineker or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had some strong opinions on whether Lineker was right or wrong to comment on political policy by the government to stop small boat crossings and deport anyone entering the UK using this method of entry. Many voices were defensive of his right to say what he wants, claiming he is a football commentator and the issue had nothing at all to do with his job as a football commentator. It was highlighted he was a representative of the BBC and he will have a contractual obligation to not get embroiled in political opinion as a BBC presenter. The BBC has pulled Lineker as he will not abide by those rules and will continue to use his social media to amplify his political beliefs. Are the BBC wrong? No, the BBC we're not wrong. They have been under guidance to reduce "left wing" commentators and comedians. So they have done. What's crazy is that wanting compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves is not seen as lefty, woke, etc. Do you really now that or think that? Is the BBC collapsing under its own guidelines of impartiality, or is it right to say we are impartial so are presenters or staff need to show that company value too?" It should be a broad church that ensures balanced discussion. Impartiality is not the same as silencing voices who say uncomfortable things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had some strong opinions on whether Lineker was right or wrong to comment on political policy by the government to stop small boat crossings and deport anyone entering the UK using this method of entry. Many voices were defensive of his right to say what he wants, claiming he is a football commentator and the issue had nothing at all to do with his job as a football commentator. It was highlighted he was a representative of the BBC and he will have a contractual obligation to not get embroiled in political opinion as a BBC presenter. The BBC has pulled Lineker as he will not abide by those rules and will continue to use his social media to amplify his political beliefs. Are the BBC wrong? No, the BBC we're not wrong. They have been under guidance to reduce "left wing" commentators and comedians. So they have done. What's crazy is that wanting compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves is not seen as lefty, woke, etc. Do you really now that or think that? Is the BBC collapsing under its own guidelines of impartiality, or is it right to say we are impartial so are presenters or staff need to show that company value too?" *our presenters*  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hypocrisy! People who work(ed) for the BBC and were not asked to step down despite direct links with the Tory party... Andrew Neil (Right-wing Spector magazine) Richard Sharp (Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak advisor) Tim Davie (Former Tory Councillor) Robbie Gibb (Former Director of Communications for Theresa May) etc...! Were all the people you mentioned, BBC presenters and if they were did they offer personal opinion on political policies outside the editorial guidelines lines of the BBC? Is that rhetorical? They don’t have to be presenters to have influence snd editorial control! Question for you... was the thing Lineker actually said wrong? I’m the BBC in this, you pointed a finger and I would like to know if they are in the same boat as Lineker or not. " So you won’t answer my question on what he said being wrong or right? Is that another example of your “nothing to see here approach”? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had some strong opinions on whether Lineker was right or wrong to comment on political policy by the government to stop small boat crossings and deport anyone entering the UK using this method of entry. Many voices were defensive of his right to say what he wants, claiming he is a football commentator and the issue had nothing at all to do with his job as a football commentator. It was highlighted he was a representative of the BBC and he will have a contractual obligation to not get embroiled in political opinion as a BBC presenter. The BBC has pulled Lineker as he will not abide by those rules and will continue to use his social media to amplify his political beliefs. Are the BBC wrong? No, the BBC we're not wrong. They have been under guidance to reduce "left wing" commentators and comedians. So they have done. What's crazy is that wanting compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves is not seen as lefty, woke, etc. Do you really now that or think that? Is the BBC collapsing under its own guidelines of impartiality, or is it right to say we are impartial so are presenters or staff need to show that company value too? It should be a broad church that ensures balanced discussion. Impartiality is not the same as silencing voices who say uncomfortable things. " There platforms on the BBC for this, the BBC are saying work for us and abide to being impartial. Is that wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hypocrisy! People who work(ed) for the BBC and were not asked to step down despite direct links with the Tory party... Andrew Neil (Right-wing Spector magazine) Richard Sharp (Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak advisor) Tim Davie (Former Tory Councillor) Robbie Gibb (Former Director of Communications for Theresa May) etc...! This hypocrisy goes both ways. Labour has not shirked in the past from political appointees to the BBC in order to control it for their own ends and ensure it is friendly to them and not any opposition party. A pox of all political houses left and right in the UK who know all too well that it is impossible to leave an organisation like the BBC to be nonpartisan in nature. OR perhaps allow a public funded broadcaster to be a broad church and present different views and beliefs while maintaining objective accuracy. The language being used by the likes of Sue Ellen is without any shadow of a doubt reflective of the language used by the Nazis in the 1930s. It is inarguable." Why are we more concerned about language used here in defence and advocacy for a policy to deal with illegal migration/refugees/human trafficking, which is draconian by British standards but nothing compared to the very real barbed wire and border security apparatus/infrastructures/personnel being thrown up by the EU to create "Fortress Europe"? Which is worse? The fact that the UK has to pay the French to police their own Channel border properly and stop refugees from crossing illegally in small boats (which endangers their lives, arguably something even more pressing than the legality of doing such an act) is something straight up out of a Mafia protection racket. The fact that said refugees can't/won't stay in France or continental Europe and have to make the risky Channel crossing to the UK for a second shot at seeking asylum speaks worse of Europe/the EU than the UK. If you read international definitions and conventions surrounding asylum seeking, it is very clear that asylum seekers have to seek refuge in the first safe country they arrive in after escaping their home countries. They should get assistance and asylum granted in the first country they arrive in as well, no questions asked, and a fair shot at life there. If said refugees then want to go somewhere else like the UK for a better life, they can apply for work visas or whatever visa opportunities available to them, be vetted properly, then taken in and welcomed as assets to British society. What's happening now is the supposed moral shaming of the UK for taking a hardline stance against enabling illegal crossings, but nothing said of French/EU police and state brutality against refugees predominantly from MENA regions in an effort to "pass the buck" to whichever country bordering the EU/France chooses to play at unconditional Good Samaritan. The true a-hole here isn't Suella and her rhetoric, but Macron and his gendarmes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hypocrisy! People who work(ed) for the BBC and were not asked to step down despite direct links with the Tory party... Andrew Neil (Right-wing Spector magazine) Richard Sharp (Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak advisor) Tim Davie (Former Tory Councillor) Robbie Gibb (Former Director of Communications for Theresa May) etc...! Were all the people you mentioned, BBC presenters and if they were did they offer personal opinion on political policies outside the editorial guidelines lines of the BBC? Is that rhetorical? They don’t have to be presenters to have influence snd editorial control! Question for you... was the thing Lineker actually said wrong? I’m the BBC in this, you pointed a finger and I would like to know if they are in the same boat as Lineker or not. So you won’t answer my question on what he said being wrong or right? Is that another example of your “nothing to see here approach”?" You are moving the goal post, I’m interested if the BBC are right or wrong on their presenters being impartial. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this the cancel culture I hear so often about? The BBC didnt seem as bothered about politicsl commentary on Qatar ... Why did only this tweet lead to this decision.... Also, the BBC are also not airing a Attenborough episode on climate change for feat of Tory backlash (allegedly). All a bit embarrassing tbh. Careful someone will try to point out the sixth episode is still going to available of iPlayer and something about it being commissioned on top of the main series from RSPB and WWF (even though The Telegraph already criticised the BBC for working with charities with a left wing lobbying bias (apparently)." I've seen that. I'm sure no one has lobbied the telegraph to lobby the govenment to get it removed. Tbh it's fantastic Streisand effect. I'm awaiting the cancellation of red nose Day as they work with some woke charity someone doesn't like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had some strong opinions on whether Lineker was right or wrong to comment on political policy by the government to stop small boat crossings and deport anyone entering the UK using this method of entry. Many voices were defensive of his right to say what he wants, claiming he is a football commentator and the issue had nothing at all to do with his job as a football commentator. It was highlighted he was a representative of the BBC and he will have a contractual obligation to not get embroiled in political opinion as a BBC presenter. The BBC has pulled Lineker as he will not abide by those rules and will continue to use his social media to amplify his political beliefs. Are the BBC wrong? No, the BBC we're not wrong. They have been under guidance to reduce "left wing" commentators and comedians. So they have done. What's crazy is that wanting compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves is not seen as lefty, woke, etc. Do you really now that or think that? Is the BBC collapsing under its own guidelines of impartiality, or is it right to say we are impartial so are presenters or staff need to show that company value too? It should be a broad church that ensures balanced discussion. Impartiality is not the same as silencing voices who say uncomfortable things. There platforms on the BBC for this, the BBC are saying work for us and abide to being impartial. Is that wrong? " And I am saying the word “impartial” doesn’t mean silencing opposing opinions but rather giving them equal airtime to encourage informed and open debate based on facts. Otherwise what is the point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hypocrisy! People who work(ed) for the BBC and were not asked to step down despite direct links with the Tory party... Andrew Neil (Right-wing Spector magazine) Richard Sharp (Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak advisor) Tim Davie (Former Tory Councillor) Robbie Gibb (Former Director of Communications for Theresa May) etc...! Were all the people you mentioned, BBC presenters and if they were did they offer personal opinion on political policies outside the editorial guidelines lines of the BBC? Is that rhetorical? They don’t have to be presenters to have influence snd editorial control! Question for you... was the thing Lineker actually said wrong? I’m the BBC in this, you pointed a finger and I would like to know if they are in the same boat as Lineker or not. So you won’t answer my question on what he said being wrong or right? Is that another example of your “nothing to see here approach”? You are moving the goal post, I’m interested if the BBC are right or wrong on their presenters being impartial. " Well it is your thread so I will stop playing (with you) because *I* believe my question is the more important one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He has just been dropped from m.o.t.d" Lineker doesn't need MOTD. He can more than do without the BBC's money for him to do MOTD. Now we see if he really has a spine and principles. If he does he will walk from the BBC permanently and just do his own MOTD elsewhere with other broadcasters like ITV or Channel 4. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had some strong opinions on whether Lineker was right or wrong to comment on political policy by the government to stop small boat crossings and deport anyone entering the UK using this method of entry. Many voices were defensive of his right to say what he wants, claiming he is a football commentator and the issue had nothing at all to do with his job as a football commentator. It was highlighted he was a representative of the BBC and he will have a contractual obligation to not get embroiled in political opinion as a BBC presenter. The BBC has pulled Lineker as he will not abide by those rules and will continue to use his social media to amplify his political beliefs. Are the BBC wrong? No, the BBC we're not wrong. They have been under guidance to reduce "left wing" commentators and comedians. So they have done. What's crazy is that wanting compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves is not seen as lefty, woke, etc. Do you really now that or think that? Is the BBC collapsing under its own guidelines of impartiality, or is it right to say we are impartial so are presenters or staff need to show that company value too? It should be a broad church that ensures balanced discussion. Impartiality is not the same as silencing voices who say uncomfortable things. There platforms on the BBC for this, the BBC are saying work for us and abide to being impartial. Is that wrong? And I am saying the word “impartial” doesn’t mean silencing opposing opinions but rather giving them equal airtime to encourage informed and open debate based on facts. Otherwise what is the point?" His twitter account is not a platform for this, is probably what the BBC are saying. If he supported the government policy would you feel the same? Is it the policy you have issue with and as long as it’s being opposed, it is okay? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hypocrisy! People who work(ed) for the BBC and were not asked to step down despite direct links with the Tory party... Andrew Neil (Right-wing Spector magazine) Richard Sharp (Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak advisor) Tim Davie (Former Tory Councillor) Robbie Gibb (Former Director of Communications for Theresa May) etc...! This hypocrisy goes both ways. Labour has not shirked in the past from political appointees to the BBC in order to control it for their own ends and ensure it is friendly to them and not any opposition party. A pox of all political houses left and right in the UK who know all too well that it is impossible to leave an organisation like the BBC to be nonpartisan in nature. OR perhaps allow a public funded broadcaster to be a broad church and present different views and beliefs while maintaining objective accuracy. The language being used by the likes of Sue Ellen is without any shadow of a doubt reflective of the language used by the Nazis in the 1930s. It is inarguable. Why are we more concerned about language used here in defence and advocacy for a policy to deal with illegal migration/refugees/human trafficking, which is draconian by British standards but nothing compared to the very real barbed wire and border security apparatus/infrastructures/personnel being thrown up by the EU to create "Fortress Europe"? Which is worse? The fact that the UK has to pay the French to police their own Channel border properly and stop refugees from crossing illegally in small boats (which endangers their lives, arguably something even more pressing than the legality of doing such an act) is something straight up out of a Mafia protection racket. The fact that said refugees can't/won't stay in France or continental Europe and have to make the risky Channel crossing to the UK for a second shot at seeking asylum speaks worse of Europe/the EU than the UK. If you read international definitions and conventions surrounding asylum seeking, it is very clear that asylum seekers have to seek refuge in the first safe country they arrive in after escaping their home countries. They should get assistance and asylum granted in the first country they arrive in as well, no questions asked, and a fair shot at life there. If said refugees then want to go somewhere else like the UK for a better life, they can apply for work visas or whatever visa opportunities available to them, be vetted properly, then taken in and welcomed as assets to British society. What's happening now is the supposed moral shaming of the UK for taking a hardline stance against enabling illegal crossings, but nothing said of French/EU police and state brutality against refugees predominantly from MENA regions in an effort to "pass the buck" to whichever country bordering the EU/France chooses to play at unconditional Good Samaritan. The true a-hole here isn't Suella and her rhetoric, but Macron and his gendarmes. " Waaaay too much to unpack there and I would need more time but I will address one thing... The first safe country thing is not true. That is an EU convention and part of the Dublin Regulation not an international convention. International law states that a person can seek asylum in any country of their choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He has just been dropped from m.o.t.d Lineker doesn't need MOTD. He can more than do without the BBC's money for him to do MOTD. Now we see if he really has a spine and principles. If he does he will walk from the BBC permanently and just do his own MOTD elsewhere with other broadcasters like ITV or Channel 4. " Or maybe get involved in politics? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hypocrisy! People who work(ed) for the BBC and were not asked to step down despite direct links with the Tory party... Andrew Neil (Right-wing Spector magazine) Richard Sharp (Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak advisor) Tim Davie (Former Tory Councillor) Robbie Gibb (Former Director of Communications for Theresa May) etc...! This hypocrisy goes both ways. Labour has not shirked in the past from political appointees to the BBC in order to control it for their own ends and ensure it is friendly to them and not any opposition party. A pox of all political houses left and right in the UK who know all too well that it is impossible to leave an organisation like the BBC to be nonpartisan in nature. OR perhaps allow a public funded broadcaster to be a broad church and present different views and beliefs while maintaining objective accuracy. The language being used by the likes of Sue Ellen is without any shadow of a doubt reflective of the language used by the Nazis in the 1930s. It is inarguable. Why are we more concerned about language used here in defence and advocacy for a policy to deal with illegal migration/refugees/human trafficking, which is draconian by British standards but nothing compared to the very real barbed wire and border security apparatus/infrastructures/personnel being thrown up by the EU to create "Fortress Europe"? Which is worse? The fact that the UK has to pay the French to police their own Channel border properly and stop refugees from crossing illegally in small boats (which endangers their lives, arguably something even more pressing than the legality of doing such an act) is something straight up out of a Mafia protection racket. The fact that said refugees can't/won't stay in France or continental Europe and have to make the risky Channel crossing to the UK for a second shot at seeking asylum speaks worse of Europe/the EU than the UK. If you read international definitions and conventions surrounding asylum seeking, it is very clear that asylum seekers have to seek refuge in the first safe country they arrive in after escaping their home countries. They should get assistance and asylum granted in the first country they arrive in as well, no questions asked, and a fair shot at life there. If said refugees then want to go somewhere else like the UK for a better life, they can apply for work visas or whatever visa opportunities available to them, be vetted properly, then taken in and welcomed as assets to British society. What's happening now is the supposed moral shaming of the UK for taking a hardline stance against enabling illegal crossings, but nothing said of French/EU police and state brutality against refugees predominantly from MENA regions in an effort to "pass the buck" to whichever country bordering the EU/France chooses to play at unconditional Good Samaritan. The true a-hole here isn't Suella and her rhetoric, but Macron and his gendarmes. Waaaay too much to unpack there and I would need more time but I will address one thing... The first safe country thing is not true. That is an EU convention and part of the Dublin Regulation not an international convention. International law states that a person can seek asylum in any country of their choice." Yeah sorry it's not exactly linked to this thread, better off in the migrant threads (which I had second thoughts on engaging within because I can't stand some of the characters in there). And on your point of international law, well they're meant to be updated with the times. The fact that it hasn't for the case of refugees and asylum is why the world's in such a mess now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He has just been dropped from m.o.t.d Lineker doesn't need MOTD. He can more than do without the BBC's money for him to do MOTD. Now we see if he really has a spine and principles. If he does he will walk from the BBC permanently and just do his own MOTD elsewhere with other broadcasters like ITV or Channel 4. Or maybe get involved in politics? " Only a fool would get involved in politics and be straitlaced by party rules, conventions and norms. If you want to really make a difference and make people's lives better nowadays, you're better off doing it as anybody BUT a politician. See Marcus Rashford for a good example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had some strong opinions on whether Lineker was right or wrong to comment on political policy by the government to stop small boat crossings and deport anyone entering the UK using this method of entry. Many voices were defensive of his right to say what he wants, claiming he is a football commentator and the issue had nothing at all to do with his job as a football commentator. It was highlighted he was a representative of the BBC and he will have a contractual obligation to not get embroiled in political opinion as a BBC presenter. The BBC has pulled Lineker as he will not abide by those rules and will continue to use his social media to amplify his political beliefs. Are the BBC wrong? No, the BBC we're not wrong. They have been under guidance to reduce "left wing" commentators and comedians. So they have done. What's crazy is that wanting compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves is not seen as lefty, woke, etc. Do you really now that or think that? Is the BBC collapsing under its own guidelines of impartiality, or is it right to say we are impartial so are presenters or staff need to show that company value too?" It was widely reported. "Impartiality" doesn't work when they have political content. Giving equal airtime to different "sides" doesn't always work. IE giving time to both real scientists explaining the science behind it, and to climate change deniers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He has just been dropped from m.o.t.d Lineker doesn't need MOTD. He can more than do without the BBC's money for him to do MOTD. Now we see if he really has a spine and principles. If he does he will walk from the BBC permanently and just do his own MOTD elsewhere with other broadcasters like ITV or Channel 4. Or maybe get involved in politics? Only a fool would get involved in politics and be straitlaced by party rules, conventions and norms. If you want to really make a difference and make people's lives better nowadays, you're better off doing it as anybody BUT a politician. See Marcus Rashford for a good example. " I’m not so sure, Gary Neville seems to be also going more political. It is interesting that they buck the trend to become more conservative as they get older, is it to do with having made money they can be more liberal in their views? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He has just been dropped from m.o.t.d Lineker doesn't need MOTD. He can more than do without the BBC's money for him to do MOTD. Now we see if he really has a spine and principles. If he does he will walk from the BBC permanently and just do his own MOTD elsewhere with other broadcasters like ITV or Channel 4. Or maybe get involved in politics? Only a fool would get involved in politics and be straitlaced by party rules, conventions and norms. If you want to really make a difference and make people's lives better nowadays, you're better off doing it as anybody BUT a politician. See Marcus Rashford for a good example. I’m not so sure, Gary Neville seems to be also going more political. It is interesting that they buck the trend to become more conservative as they get older, is it to do with having made money they can be more liberal in their views? " I think it's just generally a case of one being able to be more open with one's views if one's rich enough to not be beholden to anybody else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had some strong opinions on whether Lineker was right or wrong to comment on political policy by the government to stop small boat crossings and deport anyone entering the UK using this method of entry. Many voices were defensive of his right to say what he wants, claiming he is a football commentator and the issue had nothing at all to do with his job as a football commentator. It was highlighted he was a representative of the BBC and he will have a contractual obligation to not get embroiled in political opinion as a BBC presenter. The BBC has pulled Lineker as he will not abide by those rules and will continue to use his social media to amplify his political beliefs. Are the BBC wrong? " Good for him in standing by what he believes in whether right or wrong. Mororls before Money is a breath of fresh air. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hypocrisy! People who work(ed) for the BBC and were not asked to step down despite direct links with the Tory party... Andrew Neil (Right-wing Spector magazine) Richard Sharp (Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak advisor) Tim Davie (Former Tory Councillor) Robbie Gibb (Former Director of Communications for Theresa May) etc...! This hypocrisy goes both ways. Labour has not shirked in the past from political appointees to the BBC in order to control it for their own ends and ensure it is friendly to them and not any opposition party. A pox of all political houses left and right in the UK who know all too well that it is impossible to leave an organisation like the BBC to be nonpartisan in nature. OR perhaps allow a public funded broadcaster to be a broad church and present different views and beliefs while maintaining objective accuracy. The language being used by the likes of Sue Ellen is without any shadow of a doubt reflective of the language used by the Nazis in the 1930s. It is inarguable. Why are we more concerned about language used here in defence and advocacy for a policy to deal with illegal migration/refugees/human trafficking, which is draconian by British standards but nothing compared to the very real barbed wire and border security apparatus/infrastructures/personnel being thrown up by the EU to create "Fortress Europe"? Which is worse? The fact that the UK has to pay the French to police their own Channel border properly and stop refugees from crossing illegally in small boats (which endangers their lives, arguably something even more pressing than the legality of doing such an act) is something straight up out of a Mafia protection racket. The fact that said refugees can't/won't stay in France or continental Europe and have to make the risky Channel crossing to the UK for a second shot at seeking asylum speaks worse of Europe/the EU than the UK. If you read international definitions and conventions surrounding asylum seeking, it is very clear that asylum seekers have to seek refuge in the first safe country they arrive in after escaping their home countries. They should get assistance and asylum granted in the first country they arrive in as well, no questions asked, and a fair shot at life there. If said refugees then want to go somewhere else like the UK for a better life, they can apply for work visas or whatever visa opportunities available to them, be vetted properly, then taken in and welcomed as assets to British society. What's happening now is the supposed moral shaming of the UK for taking a hardline stance against enabling illegal crossings, but nothing said of French/EU police and state brutality against refugees predominantly from MENA regions in an effort to "pass the buck" to whichever country bordering the EU/France chooses to play at unconditional Good Samaritan. The true a-hole here isn't Suella and her rhetoric, but Macron and his gendarmes. Waaaay too much to unpack there and I would need more time but I will address one thing... The first safe country thing is not true. That is an EU convention and part of the Dublin Regulation not an international convention. International law states that a person can seek asylum in any country of their choice. Yeah sorry it's not exactly linked to this thread, better off in the migrant threads (which I had second thoughts on engaging within because I can't stand some of the characters in there). And on your point of international law, well they're meant to be updated with the times. The fact that it hasn't for the case of refugees and asylum is why the world's in such a mess now. " Your last point is kind of “well yeah but...” however, that IS international law in line with UN conventions regardless of any of our opinions on whether it needs an update. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He is entitled to say what he said, likewise the BBC are entitled to dump him for said comments. Don't really see what the problem is, though I think his comment misjudged the views of a lot of his audience. Maybe the time to get rid of him and get some new fresh blood in as presenters. " Was what Lineker wrong or right in your opinion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He is entitled to say what he said, likewise the BBC are entitled to dump him for said comments. Don't really see what the problem is, though I think his comment misjudged the views of a lot of his audience. Maybe the time to get rid of him and get some new fresh blood in as presenters. Was what Lineker wrong or right in your opinion?" Simple, if that is what he believes then he is right to say it, that does not mean I think his comment is a wise one or I agree with his view. But being a political comment puts him at odds with BBC policy, in which case he should have kept his comment to himself if wanted to stay at the BBC. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Alan Shearer has stepped down from MOTD in solidarity with Lineker. Ian Wright also given his support" And Alex Scott, the BBC have fucked up here,  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's a twat commentator. Absolutely at the bottom of his game, his co hosts are bored shitless having to carry him all the time. Political opinions? I think not as this dumbass knows nothing of politics except when it comes to his football strip. Hell, he can't even manage all that money he's being paid, takes advice from his muppet friends who, in their own stupid way, feel sorry for the poor puppies instead of realising its the puppy farms (an example of his nambiness). They've got so called charities in cahoots with the smugglers, coaching them as what to do when they arrive on our shores. Who gives a toss who takes in more than us, we're surrounded by water and that's the only reason why we take in less. I bet if we put an immigration camp next to this toffs house, he wouldn't be embracing them then, let alone drive down to the coast in his £120,000 range rover to deliver hot meals to his best friends. I am sick to death of these preachy hooray henrys in their flipping ivory towers passing judgement on all of us scum in the mire of life below them. " He took immigrants in to his house. So no need to be "sick" anymore. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's a twat commentator. Absolutely at the bottom of his game, his co hosts are bored shitless having to carry him all the time. Political opinions? I think not as this dumbass knows nothing of politics except when it comes to his football strip. Hell, he can't even manage all that money he's being paid, takes advice from his muppet friends who, in their own stupid way, feel sorry for the poor puppies instead of realising its the puppy farms (an example of his nambiness). They've got so called charities in cahoots with the smugglers, coaching them as what to do when they arrive on our shores. Who gives a toss who takes in more than us, we're surrounded by water and that's the only reason why we take in less. I bet if we put an immigration camp next to this toffs house, he wouldn't be embracing them then, let alone drive down to the coast in his £120,000 range rover to deliver hot meals to his best friends. I am sick to death of these preachy hooray henrys in their flipping ivory towers passing judgement on all of us scum in the mire of life below them. " Are you talking about the government? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had some strong opinions on whether Lineker was right or wrong to comment on political policy by the government to stop small boat crossings and deport anyone entering the UK using this method of entry. Many voices were defensive of his right to say what he wants, claiming he is a football commentator and the issue had nothing at all to do with his job as a football commentator. It was highlighted he was a representative of the BBC and he will have a contractual obligation to not get embroiled in political opinion as a BBC presenter. The BBC has pulled Lineker as he will not abide by those rules and will continue to use his social media to amplify his political beliefs. Are the BBC wrong? " The BBC rules seem harsh to me. I could understand if he made the comment on MOTD or another BBC show but it was on Twitter as far as I know and he was expressing his personal view not the BBC view. That said if those are the rules and he broke them and Said he would continue to break them, then the BBC did not really have a choice. An interesting point was made further up, would people's opinions on this change if he posted support for the government policy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I seriously think this will bring the BBC down. They have stuck their impartial Tory flag firmly on the Tory mast. They are firmly declaring themselves as state sponsored media. I for one won't be subsidising that and I predict neither will millions of others " BBC has been going downhill for ages. I absolutely love some of the nature documentaries. But their political output is embarrassing Tory supporting nonsense | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hypocrisy! People who work(ed) for the BBC and were not asked to step down despite direct links with the Tory party... Andrew Neil (Right-wing Spector magazine) Richard Sharp (Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak advisor) Tim Davie (Former Tory Councillor) Robbie Gibb (Former Director of Communications for Theresa May) etc...! Were all the people you mentioned, BBC presenters and if they were did they offer personal opinion on political policies outside the editorial guidelines lines of the BBC? " This just came to my attention... “In particular, Andrew Neil, who helped front multiple political programmes at the BBC over many years, before leaving to help launch GB News, was never subject to even a fraction of the scrutiny now being placed on Lineker. Neil, like Lineker, was a prolific user of Twitter and regularly shared his own views on everything from Brexit to climate change and the SNP. At the same time, he was chairman of one of Britain’s leading right-wing magazines, the Spectator. Neil was allowed to keep his role at the magazine, which regularly caused significant controversy over its content on issues including race and religion, despite being in such a prominent position at the BBC.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He is entitled to say what he said, likewise the BBC are entitled to dump him for said comments. Don't really see what the problem is, though I think his comment misjudged the views of a lot of his audience. Maybe the time to get rid of him and get some new fresh blood in as presenters. Was what Lineker wrong or right in your opinion? Simple, if that is what he believes then he is right to say it, that does not mean I think his comment is a wise one or I agree with his view. But being a political comment puts him at odds with BBC policy, in which case he should have kept his comment to himself if wanted to stay at the BBC. " See my post re Andrew Neil | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's a twat commentator. Absolutely at the bottom of his game, his co hosts are bored shitless having to carry him all the time. Political opinions? I think not as this dumbass knows nothing of politics except when it comes to his football strip. Hell, he can't even manage all that money he's being paid, takes advice from his muppet friends who, in their own stupid way, feel sorry for the poor puppies instead of realising its the puppy farms (an example of his nambiness). They've got so called charities in cahoots with the smugglers, coaching them as what to do when they arrive on our shores. Who gives a toss who takes in more than us, we're surrounded by water and that's the only reason why we take in less. I bet if we put an immigration camp next to this toffs house, he wouldn't be embracing them then, let alone drive down to the coast in his £120,000 range rover to deliver hot meals to his best friends. I am sick to death of these preachy hooray henrys in their flipping ivory towers passing judgement on all of us scum in the mire of life below them. " He’s housing Ukrainian refugees in his home but he must being doing it for the money eh! What a load of crap ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's a twat commentator. Absolutely at the bottom of his game, his co hosts are bored shitless having to carry him all the time. Political opinions? I think not as this dumbass knows nothing of politics except when it comes to his football strip. Hell, he can't even manage all that money he's being paid, takes advice from his muppet friends who, in their own stupid way, feel sorry for the poor puppies instead of realising its the puppy farms (an example of his nambiness). They've got so called charities in cahoots with the smugglers, coaching them as what to do when they arrive on our shores. Who gives a toss who takes in more than us, we're surrounded by water and that's the only reason why we take in less. I bet if we put an immigration camp next to this toffs house, he wouldn't be embracing them then, let alone drive down to the coast in his £120,000 range rover to deliver hot meals to his best friends. I am sick to death of these preachy hooray henrys in their flipping ivory towers passing judgement on all of us scum in the mire of life below them. He’s housing Ukrainian refugees in his home but he must being doing it for the money eh! What a load of crap ! " I feel sorry for people who are so hateful that they cannot even imagine someone who is alturistic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lineker should be free to say whatever he likes on his private Twitter . He is a sports presenter not a news or political concentrator so not relevant in representing the bbc. He has been nailed by the government whose influence over the bbc is increasing . The bbc is hated by the Tory party because they cannot buy it off and as such was the last bastion of independence, The DG and chairman being blatant Tory supporters shows its direction. During Brexit the bbc said it had at least 10 economists arguing against Brexit for every one who was pro. They were told to give equal time and support to both positions even though the pro leave had a far weaker argument. That was a sign of undue influence. The bbc should be independent but truthful. Lineker was telling it as it is. Braverman and Sunak have flexed their influence at the top of the bbc . Shame on the bbc. Scary for democracy in this country. The problem is the government know Lineker is right and they don’t like it being exposed. " How can the BBC be anything but impartial? How would it work as an organisation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lineker should be free to say whatever he likes on his private Twitter . He is a sports presenter not a news or political concentrator so not relevant in representing the bbc. He has been nailed by the government whose influence over the bbc is increasing . The bbc is hated by the Tory party because they cannot buy it off and as such was the last bastion of independence, The DG and chairman being blatant Tory supporters shows its direction. During Brexit the bbc said it had at least 10 economists arguing against Brexit for every one who was pro. They were told to give equal time and support to both positions even though the pro leave had a far weaker argument. That was a sign of undue influence. The bbc should be independent but truthful. Lineker was telling it as it is. Braverman and Sunak have flexed their influence at the top of the bbc . Shame on the bbc. Scary for democracy in this country. The problem is the government know Lineker is right and they don’t like it being exposed. How can the BBC be anything but impartial? How would it work as an organisation? " The only way the BBC could be impartial would be to avoid news and current affairs completely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lineker should be free to say whatever he likes on his private Twitter . He is a sports presenter not a news or political concentrator so not relevant in representing the bbc. He has been nailed by the government whose influence over the bbc is increasing . The bbc is hated by the Tory party because they cannot buy it off and as such was the last bastion of independence, The DG and chairman being blatant Tory supporters shows its direction. During Brexit the bbc said it had at least 10 economists arguing against Brexit for every one who was pro. They were told to give equal time and support to both positions even though the pro leave had a far weaker argument. That was a sign of undue influence. The bbc should be independent but truthful. Lineker was telling it as it is. Braverman and Sunak have flexed their influence at the top of the bbc . Shame on the bbc. Scary for democracy in this country. The problem is the government know Lineker is right and they don’t like it being exposed. How can the BBC be anything but impartial? How would it work as an organisation? The only way the BBC could be impartial would be to avoid news and current affairs completely." Which is the reality
The BBC is an organisation that was and is trusted, what has gone wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shocking decision ....and only makes his point more valid " Exactly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lineker should be free to say whatever he likes on his private Twitter . He is a sports presenter not a news or political concentrator so not relevant in representing the bbc. He has been nailed by the government whose influence over the bbc is increasing . The bbc is hated by the Tory party because they cannot buy it off and as such was the last bastion of independence, The DG and chairman being blatant Tory supporters shows its direction. During Brexit the bbc said it had at least 10 economists arguing against Brexit for every one who was pro. They were told to give equal time and support to both positions even though the pro leave had a far weaker argument. That was a sign of undue influence. The bbc should be independent but truthful. Lineker was telling it as it is. Braverman and Sunak have flexed their influence at the top of the bbc . Shame on the bbc. Scary for democracy in this country. The problem is the government know Lineker is right and they don’t like it being exposed. How can the BBC be anything but impartial? How would it work as an organisation? The only way the BBC could be impartial would be to avoid news and current affairs completely. Which is the reality
The BBC is an organisation that was and is trusted, what has gone wrong? "I imagine different for everyone. I lost trust over time. Especially because of their political coverage. Question time as an example, with the amount of airtime they gave UKIP (no MPs) over say the greens (one MP). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"MOTD will just show football tomorrow. No presenter or pundits. " And now no uk specific commentary… and it looks like players and managers won’t be doing post match interviews I have no issues with the comparison Lineker made… and in a way with the way the bbc buckled to the government it kinda proves the point Lineker is a freelance who happens to do work for the BBC… he didn’t say what he did in his capacity as a bbc host on a bbc platform… he did it on twitter as a private individual So are we saying famous people should not have public opinions? This week it was Lineker on migrants… two weeks ago it was carol vorderman on people who profited thru covid And Marcus rashford… and Gareth Southgate Basically… not allowed to embarrass the government! If the government admits there is a more than 50% probability that the specific policy violates international law…. And the United Nations say that it contravenes human rights conventions, then i bloody well hope that someone speaks up! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lineker should be free to say whatever he likes on his private Twitter . He is a sports presenter not a news or political concentrator so not relevant in representing the bbc. He has been nailed by the government whose influence over the bbc is increasing . The bbc is hated by the Tory party because they cannot buy it off and as such was the last bastion of independence, The DG and chairman being blatant Tory supporters shows its direction. During Brexit the bbc said it had at least 10 economists arguing against Brexit for every one who was pro. They were told to give equal time and support to both positions even though the pro leave had a far weaker argument. That was a sign of undue influence. The bbc should be independent but truthful. Lineker was telling it as it is. Braverman and Sunak have flexed their influence at the top of the bbc . Shame on the bbc. Scary for democracy in this country. The problem is the government know Lineker is right and they don’t like it being exposed. How can the BBC be anything but impartial? How would it work as an organisation? " In its news coverage just report facts and informed skilled (economists etc ) information. News and the way it’s presented should be factual not opinionated, Good or bad. Opinions political or otherwise are to be stated as such and be on opinion programmes. Again good or bad, right or left but everyone knows it’s opinion not news or fact. Fox News has just opinion running through its so called news programming which is why Dominion voting machines are suing Fox. The released mails and messages have proven they did not report facts and only gave opinion presented as news. GB news or talk talk are right wing and should not be allowed to call themselves news channels. The BBC have bowed to pressure from government rather than saying Linekar was not in a news role and can say what he likes whilst not presenting a bbc programme. Even sky news are slating this decision. Interesting how the new leaders of the bbc are Conservative party funders and a candidate for a Tory mp and now this gagging happens. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The only way the BBC could be impartial would be to avoid news and current affairs completely." The BBC say that anyone who works in their news and current affairs departments has to be impartial and cannot express personal opinions anywhere on social media…. Everyone else has free reign as long as you do not proport to be writing in your capacity as a bbc employee | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you agree with his comments or not we all should defend his right to voice them. Even in this little weird world of fab we would be annoyed if we weren’t allowed to state our opinion. This strikes are the very heart of freedoms in society. It also shows the sinister behind the scenes take over of what’s left of our free media. The term main stream media was first voiced by Joseph Goebbels and he told the German people they should ignore it and listen to the truth from the nazi party. ( this information is from Jon Stewart and Ian Hislop conversation). Worrying times. " How would you feel if he supported the government’s plan? Would you want him off air or would you be happy he had his say? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you agree with his comments or not we all should defend his right to voice them. Even in this little weird world of fab we would be annoyed if we weren’t allowed to state our opinion. This strikes are the very heart of freedoms in society. It also shows the sinister behind the scenes take over of what’s left of our free media. The term main stream media was first voiced by Joseph Goebbels and he told the German people they should ignore it and listen to the truth from the nazi party. ( this information is from Jon Stewart and Ian Hislop conversation). Worrying times. How would you feel if he supported the government’s plan? Would you want him off air or would you be happy he had his say? " I would say if it’s good enough for Andrew Neil or sir Alan sugar…. Then it should be good enough for Gary Lineker | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you agree with his comments or not we all should defend his right to voice them. Even in this little weird world of fab we would be annoyed if we weren’t allowed to state our opinion. This strikes are the very heart of freedoms in society. It also shows the sinister behind the scenes take over of what’s left of our free media. The term main stream media was first voiced by Joseph Goebbels and he told the German people they should ignore it and listen to the truth from the nazi party. ( this information is from Jon Stewart and Ian Hislop conversation). Worrying times. How would you feel if he supported the government’s plan? Would you want him off air or would you be happy he had his say? I would say if it’s good enough for Andrew Neil or sir Alan sugar…. Then it should be good enough for Gary Lineker " let me put it another way.. if Lineker had expressed support for the governments plans, would the same people supporting his right to say what he wants, suddenly become get him off the tv, he shouldn’t have these views?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We had some strong opinions on whether Lineker was right or wrong to comment on political policy by the government to stop small boat crossings and deport anyone entering the UK using this method of entry. Many voices were defensive of his right to say what he wants, claiming he is a football commentator and the issue had nothing at all to do with his job as a football commentator. It was highlighted he was a representative of the BBC and he will have a contractual obligation to not get embroiled in political opinion as a BBC presenter. The BBC has pulled Lineker as he will not abide by those rules and will continue to use his social media to amplify his political beliefs. Are the BBC wrong? " Yes, the BBC are wrong. Gary Lineker is impartial as a football pundit. His political opinion does not affect the performance of his job in any way. Expressing a political opinion does not make any difference to BBC sports coverage. The comments were not made on air or from a BBC platform of any description. News presenters have to be impartial at all times because their job is directly related to politics. How is news coverage or football coverage effected by what Lineker said? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. " Do you understand the issues? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? " Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis." He didn’t call them Nazis, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis. He didn’t call them Nazis, "I’ve stopped arguing that point with people now… just because it makes a clear distinction between who actually read the tweet… and who just listened to the propaganda pushed by the right wing media | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis. He didn’t call them Nazis,
I’ve stopped arguing that point with people now… just because it makes a clear distinction between who actually read the tweet… and who just listened to the propaganda pushed by the right wing media "Exactly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis." Clearly you either don’t understand what he said, or you don’t really understand the history of pre-WW2 European politics. The German policies of the 1930’s are not the same as the Nazi horrors of the 1940’s. The fact the the politics of the 1930’s led to the horrors of the 1940’s ought to be seen as a warning to people who refer to minorities as invaders, and who look to limit the right to protest, free speech, and workers rights, all whilst rapping themselves in a national flag. If they themselves can’t see the risk from that direction of travel, then hopefully those who do know their history can be free to point it out. The fact that Lineker has now been cancelled actually validates the very point he was making. The problem is really BECAUSE this Government is sending out messages and acting like the German Government of the 1930’s. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's a twat commentator. Absolutely at the bottom of his game, his co hosts are bored shitless having to carry him all the time. Political opinions? I think not as this dumbass knows nothing of politics except when it comes to his football strip. Hell, he can't even manage all that money he's being paid, takes advice from his muppet friends who, in their own stupid way, feel sorry for the poor puppies instead of realising its the puppy farms (an example of his nambiness). They've got so called charities in cahoots with the smugglers, coaching them as what to do when they arrive on our shores. Who gives a toss who takes in more than us, we're surrounded by water and that's the only reason why we take in less. I bet if we put an immigration camp next to this toffs house, he wouldn't be embracing them then, let alone drive down to the coast in his £120,000 range rover to deliver hot meals to his best friends. I am sick to death of these preachy hooray henrys in their flipping ivory towers passing judgement on all of us scum in the mire of life below them. " Lineker is a C##t most of the other pundits are C##t’s. MOTD just showing the football sounds perfect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it is the idiotic thing that richard sharp could do especially in the position he is in is he going to sack alan sugar Laura Kuenssberg or Fiona Bruce " Agreed… the excuse Fiona Bruce gave for Stanley Johnson on questions time on Thursday night with regards to domestic abuse was way worse than anything Lineker has ever tweeted | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's a twat commentator. Absolutely at the bottom of his game, his co hosts are bored shitless having to carry him all the time. Political opinions? I think not as this dumbass knows nothing of politics except when it comes to his football strip. Hell, he can't even manage all that money he's being paid, takes advice from his muppet friends who, in their own stupid way, feel sorry for the poor puppies instead of realising its the puppy farms (an example of his nambiness). They've got so called charities in cahoots with the smugglers, coaching them as what to do when they arrive on our shores. Who gives a toss who takes in more than us, we're surrounded by water and that's the only reason why we take in less. I bet if we put an immigration camp next to this toffs house, he wouldn't be embracing them then, let alone drive down to the coast in his £120,000 range rover to deliver hot meals to his best friends. I am sick to death of these preachy hooray henrys in their flipping ivory towers passing judgement on all of us scum in the mire of life below them. Lineker is a C##t most of the other pundits are C##t’s. MOTD just showing the football sounds perfect " You seem very angry and bitter with the world. Do you like anyone ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis. Clearly you either don’t understand what he said, or you don’t really understand the history of pre-WW2 European politics. The German policies of the 1930’s are not the same as the Nazi horrors of the 1940’s. The fact the the politics of the 1930’s led to the horrors of the 1940’s ought to be seen as a warning to people who refer to minorities as invaders, and who look to limit the right to protest, free speech, and workers rights, all whilst rapping themselves in a national flag. If they themselves can’t see the risk from that direction of travel, then hopefully those who do know their history can be free to point it out. The fact that Lineker has now been cancelled actually validates the very point he was making. The problem is really BECAUSE this Government is sending out messages and acting like the German Government of the 1930’s. " I think you are trivialising the horror of the Nazis by conflating their crimes with legal controls of our borders and people smuggling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis. Clearly you either don’t understand what he said, or you don’t really understand the history of pre-WW2 European politics. The German policies of the 1930’s are not the same as the Nazi horrors of the 1940’s. The fact the the politics of the 1930’s led to the horrors of the 1940’s ought to be seen as a warning to people who refer to minorities as invaders, and who look to limit the right to protest, free speech, and workers rights, all whilst rapping themselves in a national flag. If they themselves can’t see the risk from that direction of travel, then hopefully those who do know their history can be free to point it out. The fact that Lineker has now been cancelled actually validates the very point he was making. The problem is really BECAUSE this Government is sending out messages and acting like the German Government of the 1930’s. I think you are trivialising the horror of the Nazis by conflating their crimes with legal controls of our borders and people smuggling." You should leave politics to people that understand the issues | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis. He didn’t call them Nazis, "Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout. Gary knew what he was doing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis. Clearly you either don’t understand what he said, or you don’t really understand the history of pre-WW2 European politics. The German policies of the 1930’s are not the same as the Nazi horrors of the 1940’s. The fact the the politics of the 1930’s led to the horrors of the 1940’s ought to be seen as a warning to people who refer to minorities as invaders, and who look to limit the right to protest, free speech, and workers rights, all whilst rapping themselves in a national flag. If they themselves can’t see the risk from that direction of travel, then hopefully those who do know their history can be free to point it out. The fact that Lineker has now been cancelled actually validates the very point he was making. The problem is really BECAUSE this Government is sending out messages and acting like the German Government of the 1930’s. I think you are trivialising the horror of the Nazis by conflating their crimes with legal controls of our borders and people smuggling. You should leave politics to people that understand the issues "Touché….. 
I was just going to ask if they had actually read the actual tweet! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis. He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing. "He definitely didn’t call them Nazis, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis. He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
He definitely didn’t call them Nazis, "His statement definitely led to that # trending. As I stated, just because he didn't use the word doesn't mean his is free of the fallout. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing. "Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims She refused……. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. " Is this intentionally ironic? If so bravo! This was funny. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis. He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
He definitely didn’t call them Nazis,
His statement definitely led to that # trending.
As I stated, just because he didn't use the word doesn't mean his is free of the fallout."He was stating facts, anyway, this is all working in his and the point he was making, favour, very shrewd | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused……."She was also confronted by a holocaust survivor, again, she refused | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused……."I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis. He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
He definitely didn’t call them Nazis,
His statement definitely led to that # trending.
As I stated, just because he didn't use the word doesn't mean his is free of the fallout.
He was stating facts, anyway, this is all working in his and the point he was making, favour, very shrewd "His 'facts' were opinion. Is it working out in his favour? He didn't want to 'step down'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?"Are you looking to apportion ‘blame’ to every Twitter hashtag | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis. He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
He definitely didn’t call them Nazis, "Oh come off it, it's disingenuous to suggest there was no link to Nazis intended. Look, if celebs make inflammatory pronouncements they have to live with the consequences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis. He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
He definitely didn’t call them Nazis,
His statement definitely led to that # trending.
As I stated, just because he didn't use the word doesn't mean his is free of the fallout.
He was stating facts, anyway, this is all working in his and the point he was making, favour, very shrewd
His 'facts' were opinion. Is it working out in his favour? He didn't want to 'step down'."He was stating facts, look at the language used . He is also highlighting the issue, he has the support of his colleagues and the majority of the football world, he doesn’t need that job. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
Are you looking to apportion ‘blame’ to every Twitter hashtag "I'm not looking to apportion any blame to any # except this one. I don't mind Gary saying what he said, he's entitled to that. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?"I am saying that braverman and the right wing press push the nazi narrative in response to the tweet… coupled with suella also bringing out the “im offended because my husband is Jewish “ card | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis. He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
He definitely didn’t call them Nazis,
His statement definitely led to that # trending.
As I stated, just because he didn't use the word doesn't mean his is free of the fallout.
He was stating facts, anyway, this is all working in his and the point he was making, favour, very shrewd
His 'facts' were opinion. Is it working out in his favour? He didn't want to 'step down'.
He was stating facts, look at the language used . He is also highlighting the issue, he has the support of his colleagues and the majority of the football world, he doesn’t need that job. "He doesn't need the job but wants it. His colleagues also have my support. Gary, the fact that he's been stood down is the result of his own doing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis. He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
He definitely didn’t call them Nazis,
Oh come off it, it's disingenuous to suggest there was no link to Nazis intended. Look, if celebs make inflammatory pronouncements they have to live with the consequences. "Have you read the tweet? In which case can you quote the actual tweet word for word please….. thank you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
I am saying that braverman and the right wing press push the nazi narrative in response to the tweet… coupled with suella also bringing out the “im offended because my husband is Jewish “ card"That # was trending before any statement from Braverman. The is unreal, the left create a # which trends and its all the fault of the right wing. How entrenched are you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis. He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
He definitely didn’t call them Nazis,
His statement definitely led to that # trending.
As I stated, just because he didn't use the word doesn't mean his is free of the fallout.
He was stating facts, anyway, this is all working in his and the point he was making, favour, very shrewd
His 'facts' were opinion. Is it working out in his favour? He didn't want to 'step down'.
He was stating facts, look at the language used . He is also highlighting the issue, he has the support of his colleagues and the majority of the football world, he doesn’t need that job.
He doesn't need the job but wants it. His colleagues also have my support. Gary, the fact that he's been stood down is the result of his own doing."This issue is more important to him than his job, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
I am saying that braverman and the right wing press push the nazi narrative in response to the tweet… coupled with suella also bringing out the “im offended because my husband is Jewish “ card
That # was trending before any statement from Braverman.
The is unreal, the left create a # which trends and its all the fault of the right wing.
How entrenched are you?"The left? A huge number off twitter ‘followers’ are bots, anyone can create a trending hashtag | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
I am saying that braverman and the right wing press push the nazi narrative in response to the tweet… coupled with suella also bringing out the “im offended because my husband is Jewish “ card
That # was trending before any statement from Braverman.
The is unreal, the left create a # which trends and its all the fault of the right wing.
How entrenched are you?
The left? A huge number off twitter ‘followers’ are bots, anyone can create a trending hashtag "
Funny how you love 'twitter news' when it suits | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you agree with his comments or not we all should defend his right to voice them. Even in this little weird world of fab we would be annoyed if we weren’t allowed to state our opinion. This strikes are the very heart of freedoms in society. It also shows the sinister behind the scenes take over of what’s left of our free media. The term main stream media was first voiced by Joseph Goebbels and he told the German people they should ignore it and listen to the truth from the nazi party. ( this information is from Jon Stewart and Ian Hislop conversation). Worrying times. How would you feel if he supported the government’s plan? Would you want him off air or would you be happy he had his say? " As I said he’s free to say his opinion. Andrew Neil is raving right winger but he’s also an excellent interviewer so I enjoy watching him. Just because I don’t agree with someone’s view doesn’t mean I want to silence them. As I’ve posted before I want PR in voting. That will give a voice to the communists and the national front . No one should be silenced on their opinion. It should not however remain unchallenged and should not be presented as fact as with Fox News and media such as the daily mail. The quotes that conservative councils are better with money can be challenged as factually labour councils are on average £200 cheaper. Who is better depends on what service is provided.Fastest growing economy when actually it’s a recovery and we’re still 2% below pre covid. It’s segregating an opinion and your right to have a opinion from stating something as factual news. Lineker has every right to what he said and personally I agree with his words. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were suffering here from the phenomenon of the 'celebrity'. Some airhead or other gets a public platform and starts spouting their own opinions and agenda, but without the background facts, analysis and balance. Lineker should stick to commenting on men kicking a ball around a field and leave politics to people who understand the issues. Do you understand the issues? Well let's say I understand enough to know that proposed policies to curtail illegal immigration does not make the government Nazis. He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
He definitely didn’t call them Nazis,
His statement definitely led to that # trending.
As I stated, just because he didn't use the word doesn't mean his is free of the fallout.
He was stating facts, anyway, this is all working in his and the point he was making, favour, very shrewd
His 'facts' were opinion. Is it working out in his favour? He didn't want to 'step down'.
He was stating facts, look at the language used . He is also highlighting the issue, he has the support of his colleagues and the majority of the football world, he doesn’t need that job.
He doesn't need the job but wants it. His colleagues also have my support. Gary, the fact that he's been stood down is the result of his own doing.
This issue is more important to him than his job,"I didn't claim otherwise. Gary's position on the is admirable. As are his actions. That doesn't change the fact that this is his own doing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
I am saying that braverman and the right wing press push the nazi narrative in response to the tweet… coupled with suella also bringing out the “im offended because my husband is Jewish “ card
That # was trending before any statement from Braverman.
The is unreal, the left create a # which trends and its all the fault of the right wing.
How entrenched are you?
The left? A huge number off twitter ‘followers’ are bots, anyone can create a trending hashtag
Funny how you love 'twitter news' when it suits"#stanleyjohnsonisawifebeater is trending, i blame Boris | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
I am saying that braverman and the right wing press push the nazi narrative in response to the tweet… coupled with suella also bringing out the “im offended because my husband is Jewish “ card
That # was trending before any statement from Braverman.
The is unreal, the left create a # which trends and its all the fault of the right wing.
How entrenched are you?
The left? A huge number off twitter ‘followers’ are bots, anyone can create a trending hashtag
Funny how you love 'twitter news' when it suits
#stanleyjohnsonisawifebeater is trending, i blame Boris "Oh you don't blame the bots? If Boris is to blame for that then Gary is to blame for the other. Get your head out of the sand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
I am saying that braverman and the right wing press push the nazi narrative in response to the tweet… coupled with suella also bringing out the “im offended because my husband is Jewish “ card
That # was trending before any statement from Braverman.
The is unreal, the left create a # which trends and its all the fault of the right wing.
How entrenched are you?
The left? A huge number off twitter ‘followers’ are bots, anyone can create a trending hashtag
Funny how you love 'twitter news' when it suits
#stanleyjohnsonisawifebeater is trending, i blame Boris
Oh you don't blame the bots?
If Boris is to blame for that then Gary is to blame for the other. Get your head out of the sand.
"Boris knew what he was doing, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
I am saying that braverman and the right wing press push the nazi narrative in response to the tweet… coupled with suella also bringing out the “im offended because my husband is Jewish “ card
That # was trending before any statement from Braverman.
The is unreal, the left create a # which trends and its all the fault of the right wing.
How entrenched are you?
The left? A huge number off twitter ‘followers’ are bots, anyone can create a trending hashtag
Funny how you love 'twitter news' when it suits
#stanleyjohnsonisawifebeater is trending, i blame Boris
Oh you don't blame the bots?
If Boris is to blame for that then Gary is to blame for the other. Get your head out of the sand.
Boris knew what he was doing, "Boris was too stupid to see this. We all know Boris isn't the best 'thinker' out there. Why have you resorted to playground tactics? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
I am saying that braverman and the right wing press push the nazi narrative in response to the tweet… coupled with suella also bringing out the “im offended because my husband is Jewish “ card
That # was trending before any statement from Braverman.
The is unreal, the left create a # which trends and its all the fault of the right wing.
How entrenched are you?
The left? A huge number off twitter ‘followers’ are bots, anyone can create a trending hashtag
Funny how you love 'twitter news' when it suits
#stanleyjohnsonisawifebeater is trending, i blame Boris
Oh you don't blame the bots?
If Boris is to blame for that then Gary is to blame for the other. Get your head out of the sand.
Boris knew what he was doing,
Boris was too stupid to see this. We all know Boris isn't the best 'thinker' out there.
Why have you resorted to playground tactics?"I haven’t, you are suggesting that if you highlight facts or an issue you are then ‘responsible’ for people (or bots) posting Twitter abuse? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Clearly he was clueless, the policy is deeper than migrants crossing the channel and I'm surprised he did not see that. The policy calls into question a country's right to refuse admission. If what the UK is planning is deemed illegal by world organisations, then the whole world will become borderless, I doubt that day will be forthcoming anytime soon. " You haven’t read the tweet | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's a twat commentator. Absolutely at the bottom of his game, his co hosts are bored shitless having to carry him all the time. Political opinions? I think not as this dumbass knows nothing of politics except when it comes to his football strip. Hell, he can't even manage all that money he's being paid, takes advice from his muppet friends who, in their own stupid way, feel sorry for the poor puppies instead of realising its the puppy farms (an example of his nambiness). They've got so called charities in cahoots with the smugglers, coaching them as what to do when they arrive on our shores. Who gives a toss who takes in more than us, we're surrounded by water and that's the only reason why we take in less. I bet if we put an immigration camp next to this toffs house, he wouldn't be embracing them then, let alone drive down to the coast in his £120,000 range rover to deliver hot meals to his best friends. I am sick to death of these preachy hooray henrys in their flipping ivory towers passing judgement on all of us scum in the mire of life below them. Lineker is a C##t most of the other pundits are C##t’s. MOTD just showing the football sounds perfect " Oh I thought the Fab Four on here were the cunts. But clearly not that special as everyone you dislike is also a cunt! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
I am saying that braverman and the right wing press push the nazi narrative in response to the tweet… coupled with suella also bringing out the “im offended because my husband is Jewish “ card
That # was trending before any statement from Braverman.
The is unreal, the left create a # which trends and its all the fault of the right wing.
How entrenched are you?
The left? A huge number off twitter ‘followers’ are bots, anyone can create a trending hashtag
Funny how you love 'twitter news' when it suits
#stanleyjohnsonisawifebeater is trending, i blame Boris
Oh you don't blame the bots?
If Boris is to blame for that then Gary is to blame for the other. Get your head out of the sand.
Boris knew what he was doing,
Boris was too stupid to see this. We all know Boris isn't the best 'thinker' out there.
Why have you resorted to playground tactics?
I haven’t, you are suggesting that if you highlight facts or an issue you are then ‘responsible’ for people (or bots) posting Twitter abuse? "No. I am suggesting Gary knew what he was doing. I'm going to assume you follow him. I'm not sure why you'd be surprised that this # should be attributed to his comments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We criticise other countries for their censorship of the news to their citizens but the BBC are doing exactly that in what is meant to be a country where we have the freedom to voice our opinions. No one spoke up at the time of what was happening with Rolf Harris and Jimmy Saville and innocent lives were ruined by their abusers. A commentator gives an opinion on refugees and he’s silenced. Nothing has changed within the BBC. It’s good to see that the pundits who were meant to be on the show are supporting Lineker. Says a lot about the man himself that he has their support. It doesn’t matter thar he’s a football commentator, he has opinions and is entitled to voice them. " Gary is entitled to his opinion and has been silenced. He is not entitled to freedom from consequences which is what has happened here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
I am saying that braverman and the right wing press push the nazi narrative in response to the tweet… coupled with suella also bringing out the “im offended because my husband is Jewish “ card
That # was trending before any statement from Braverman.
The is unreal, the left create a # which trends and its all the fault of the right wing.
How entrenched are you?
The left? A huge number off twitter ‘followers’ are bots, anyone can create a trending hashtag
Funny how you love 'twitter news' when it suits
#stanleyjohnsonisawifebeater is trending, i blame Boris
Oh you don't blame the bots?
If Boris is to blame for that then Gary is to blame for the other. Get your head out of the sand.
Boris knew what he was doing,
Boris was too stupid to see this. We all know Boris isn't the best 'thinker' out there.
Why have you resorted to playground tactics?
I haven’t, you are suggesting that if you highlight facts or an issue you are then ‘responsible’ for people (or bots) posting Twitter abuse?
No. I am suggesting Gary knew what he was doing. I'm going to assume you follow him. I'm not sure why you'd be surprised that this # should be attributed to his comments."Just as Boris knew what he was doing? Are you saying that Gary linekar should be held responsible for abuse on Twitter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We criticise other countries for their censorship of the news to their citizens but the BBC are doing exactly that in what is meant to be a country where we have the freedom to voice our opinions. No one spoke up at the time of what was happening with Rolf Harris and Jimmy Saville and innocent lives were ruined by their abusers. A commentator gives an opinion on refugees and he’s silenced. Nothing has changed within the BBC. It’s good to see that the pundits who were meant to be on the show are supporting Lineker. Says a lot about the man himself that he has their support. It doesn’t matter thar he’s a football commentator, he has opinions and is entitled to voice them. Gary is entitled to his opinion and has been silenced. He is not entitled to freedom from consequences which is what has happened here." The government are entitled to make policy they are not entitled to freedom from consequences of such policies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
I am saying that braverman and the right wing press push the nazi narrative in response to the tweet… coupled with suella also bringing out the “im offended because my husband is Jewish “ card
That # was trending before any statement from Braverman.
The is unreal, the left create a # which trends and its all the fault of the right wing.
How entrenched are you?
The left? A huge number off twitter ‘followers’ are bots, anyone can create a trending hashtag
Funny how you love 'twitter news' when it suits
#stanleyjohnsonisawifebeater is trending, i blame Boris
Oh you don't blame the bots?
If Boris is to blame for that then Gary is to blame for the other. Get your head out of the sand.
Boris knew what he was doing,
Boris was too stupid to see this. We all know Boris isn't the best 'thinker' out there.
Why have you resorted to playground tactics?
I haven’t, you are suggesting that if you highlight facts or an issue you are then ‘responsible’ for people (or bots) posting Twitter abuse?
No. I am suggesting Gary knew what he was doing. I'm going to assume you follow him. I'm not sure why you'd be surprised that this # should be attributed to his comments.
Just as Boris knew what he was doing? Are you saying that Gary linekar should be held responsible for abuse on Twitter? "Held responsible? In what capacity? TBH, I don't give a fuck about Boris or the fact that your made up # isn't really trending  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We criticise other countries for their censorship of the news to their citizens but the BBC are doing exactly that in what is meant to be a country where we have the freedom to voice our opinions. No one spoke up at the time of what was happening with Rolf Harris and Jimmy Saville and innocent lives were ruined by their abusers. A commentator gives an opinion on refugees and he’s silenced. Nothing has changed within the BBC. It’s good to see that the pundits who were meant to be on the show are supporting Lineker. Says a lot about the man himself that he has their support. It doesn’t matter thar he’s a football commentator, he has opinions and is entitled to voice them. Gary is entitled to his opinion and has been silenced. He is not entitled to freedom from consequences which is what has happened here. The government are entitled to make policy they are not entitled to freedom from consequences of such policies "Haven't argued otherwise. You do chat some nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
I am saying that braverman and the right wing press push the nazi narrative in response to the tweet… coupled with suella also bringing out the “im offended because my husband is Jewish “ card
That # was trending before any statement from Braverman.
The is unreal, the left create a # which trends and its all the fault of the right wing.
How entrenched are you?
The left? A huge number off twitter ‘followers’ are bots, anyone can create a trending hashtag
Funny how you love 'twitter news' when it suits
#stanleyjohnsonisawifebeater is trending, i blame Boris
Oh you don't blame the bots?
If Boris is to blame for that then Gary is to blame for the other. Get your head out of the sand.
Boris knew what he was doing,
Boris was too stupid to see this. We all know Boris isn't the best 'thinker' out there.
Why have you resorted to playground tactics?
I haven’t, you are suggesting that if you highlight facts or an issue you are then ‘responsible’ for people (or bots) posting Twitter abuse?
No. I am suggesting Gary knew what he was doing. I'm going to assume you follow him. I'm not sure why you'd be surprised that this # should be attributed to his comments.
Just as Boris knew what he was doing? Are you saying that Gary linekar should be held responsible for abuse on Twitter?
Held responsible? In what capacity?
TBH, I don't give a fuck about Boris or the fact that your made up # isn't really trending "My made up braverman # was never trending either | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
I am saying that braverman and the right wing press push the nazi narrative in response to the tweet… coupled with suella also bringing out the “im offended because my husband is Jewish “ card
That # was trending before any statement from Braverman.
The is unreal, the left create a # which trends and its all the fault of the right wing.
How entrenched are you?
The left? A huge number off twitter ‘followers’ are bots, anyone can create a trending hashtag
Funny how you love 'twitter news' when it suits
#stanleyjohnsonisawifebeater is trending, i blame Boris
Oh you don't blame the bots?
If Boris is to blame for that then Gary is to blame for the other. Get your head out of the sand.
Boris knew what he was doing,
Boris was too stupid to see this. We all know Boris isn't the best 'thinker' out there.
Why have you resorted to playground tactics?
I haven’t, you are suggesting that if you highlight facts or an issue you are then ‘responsible’ for people (or bots) posting Twitter abuse?
No. I am suggesting Gary knew what he was doing. I'm going to assume you follow him. I'm not sure why you'd be surprised that this # should be attributed to his comments.
Just as Boris knew what he was doing? Are you saying that Gary linekar should be held responsible for abuse on Twitter?
Held responsible? In what capacity?
TBH, I don't give a fuck about Boris or the fact that your made up # isn't really trending
My made up braverman # was never trending either "Selective memory? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
I am saying that braverman and the right wing press push the nazi narrative in response to the tweet… coupled with suella also bringing out the “im offended because my husband is Jewish “ card
That # was trending before any statement from Braverman.
The is unreal, the left create a # which trends and its all the fault of the right wing.
How entrenched are you?
The left? A huge number off twitter ‘followers’ are bots, anyone can create a trending hashtag
Funny how you love 'twitter news' when it suits
#stanleyjohnsonisawifebeater is trending, i blame Boris
Oh you don't blame the bots?
If Boris is to blame for that then Gary is to blame for the other. Get your head out of the sand.
Boris knew what he was doing,
Boris was too stupid to see this. We all know Boris isn't the best 'thinker' out there.
Why have you resorted to playground tactics?
I haven’t, you are suggesting that if you highlight facts or an issue you are then ‘responsible’ for people (or bots) posting Twitter abuse?
No. I am suggesting Gary knew what he was doing. I'm going to assume you follow him. I'm not sure why you'd be surprised that this # should be attributed to his comments.
Just as Boris knew what he was doing? Are you saying that Gary linekar should be held responsible for abuse on Twitter?
Held responsible? In what capacity?
TBH, I don't give a fuck about Boris or the fact that your made up # isn't really trending
My made up braverman # was never trending either
Selective memory?"Eh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's a twat commentator. Absolutely at the bottom of his game, his co hosts are bored shitless having to carry him all the time. Political opinions? I think not as this dumbass knows nothing of politics except when it comes to his football strip. Hell, he can't even manage all that money he's being paid, takes advice from his muppet friends who, in their own stupid way, feel sorry for the poor puppies instead of realising its the puppy farms (an example of his nambiness). They've got so called charities in cahoots with the smugglers, coaching them as what to do when they arrive on our shores. Who gives a toss who takes in more than us, we're surrounded by water and that's the only reason why we take in less. I bet if we put an immigration camp next to this toffs house, he wouldn't be embracing them then, let alone drive down to the coast in his £120,000 range rover to deliver hot meals to his best friends. I am sick to death of these preachy hooray henrys in their flipping ivory towers passing judgement on all of us scum in the mire of life below them. Lineker is a C##t most of the other pundits are C##t’s. MOTD just showing the football sounds perfect " Is it acceptable to describe the Prime Minister and Home Secretary with the same words? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
Are you looking to apportion ‘blame’ to every Twitter hashtag
I'm not looking to apportion any blame to any # except this one.
I don't mind Gary saying what he said, he's entitled to that. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences."How des his tweet affect his impartiality in providing opinion on football performance? How does it effect the impartiality of news presenters presenting political news and interviewing politicians? Are there any circumstances where actions today can be compared to 1930s Germany or must that part of history be avoided in all public debate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
Are you looking to apportion ‘blame’ to every Twitter hashtag
I'm not looking to apportion any blame to any # except this one.
I don't mind Gary saying what he said, he's entitled to that. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
How des his tweet affect his impartiality in providing opinion on football performance?
How does it effect the impartiality of news presenters presenting political news and interviewing politicians?
Are there any circumstances where actions today can be compared to 1930s Germany or must that part of history be avoided in all public debate?"Gary isn't impartial when it come to football commentary. Not sure if you're a football fan but if you are you should know that. Gary would've signed a contract and he has fallen foul of that. As I said, he is entitled to his opinion but he isnt free from consequences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
I am saying that braverman and the right wing press push the nazi narrative in response to the tweet… coupled with suella also bringing out the “im offended because my husband is Jewish “ card
That # was trending before any statement from Braverman.
The is unreal, the left create a # which trends and its all the fault of the right wing.
How entrenched are you?"You already know the answer to that..... Deeply | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In a gesture of support West Ham have confirmed they will not be appearing on MOTD next season." Everton wish to do the same.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes." Lockdown rules were broken by Labour and the SNP as well | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. Lockdown rules were broken by Labour and the SNP as well" I was talking about the hypocrisy of the whiners on the media all day yesterday. Who were 90% Conservative MPs. But because some others followed suit i guess that's all fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. Lockdown rules were broken by Labour and the SNP as well I was talking about the hypocrisy of the whiners on the media all day yesterday. Who were 90% Conservative MPs. But because some others followed suit i guess that's all fine." They are just a bunch of virtue signalling snowflakes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes." The same people saying Lineker should be free to break impartiality rules, also want conservatives held to account over lockdown rule breaking.. That's ironic too. Works both ways. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. The same people saying Lineker should be free to break impartiality rules, also want conservatives held to account over lockdown rule breaking.. That's ironic too. Works both ways." Rules for thee but not for me it seems, and it's applicable to everyone on all sides. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. The same people saying Lineker should be free to break impartiality rules, also want conservatives held to account over lockdown rule breaking.. That's ironic too. Works both ways. Rules for thee but not for me it seems, and it's applicable to everyone on all sides. " Breaking lock down rules were against the law, by the tories who made the rules | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. Lockdown rules were broken by Labour and the SNP as well I was talking about the hypocrisy of the whiners on the media all day yesterday. Who were 90% Conservative MPs. But because some others followed suit i guess that's all fine. They are just a bunch of virtue signalling snowflakes " Like Lineker isn't? Show me the refugees he's taken in from those who crossed the Channel and entered the UK illegally in small boats? Oh wait. They're not Western/Caucasian white like the Ukrainians he's taken in (or offered to take in) are they? 
Its a sign of intellectual stunting when the go to analogy by someone to criticise anything is to immediately reach for the "Nazi" label or connotation. Of which Lineker's comment was definitely the latter sort. If he had a point, he shot himself by giving Braverman and the Tories something to beat him like a pinata about, especially when Braverman's husband is a Jew himself.
A hundred different ways he could have spoken up against the illegal migration policy, as is his right to free speech. But no. Typical Lineker. He had to go choose the most inflammatory thing to say knowing full well how many people would read it and who would read it. Because he's not interested in simply making an opinion. He's fundamentally a celebrity, and all he wanted was the oxygen of the spotlight on saying the loudest statement on anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. The same people saying Lineker should be free to break impartiality rules, also want conservatives held to account over lockdown rule breaking.. That's ironic too. Works both ways." Can you point to where in my post, I said its ok for Lineker to break impartiality rules..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. The same people saying Lineker should be free to break impartiality rules, also want conservatives held to account over lockdown rule breaking.. That's ironic too. Works both ways. Can you point to where in my post, I said its ok for Lineker to break impartiality rules..?" Did I say you or did I say 'the same people'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. Lockdown rules were broken by Labour and the SNP as well I was talking about the hypocrisy of the whiners on the media all day yesterday. Who were 90% Conservative MPs. But because some others followed suit i guess that's all fine. They are just a bunch of virtue signalling snowflakes Like Lineker isn't? Show me the refugees he's taken in from those who crossed the Channel and entered the UK illegally in small boats? Oh wait. They're not Western/Caucasian white like the Ukrainians he's taken in (or offered to take in) are they?
Its a sign of intellectual stunting when the go to analogy by someone to criticise anything is to immediately reach for the "Nazi" label or connotation. Of which Lineker's comment was definitely the latter sort. If he had a point, he shot himself by giving Braverman and the Tories something to beat him like a pinata about, especially when Braverman's husband is a Jew himself.
A hundred different ways he could have spoken up against the illegal migration policy, as is his right to free speech. But no. Typical Lineker. He had to go choose the most inflammatory thing to say knowing full well how many people would read it and who would read it. Because he's not interested in simply making an opinion. He's fundamentally a celebrity, and all he wanted was the oxygen of the spotlight on saying the loudest statement on anything. "Why does he have to house refugees for him to be allowed to care about this issues? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. The same people saying Lineker should be free to break impartiality rules, also want conservatives held to account over lockdown rule breaking.. That's ironic too. Works both ways. Can you point to where in my post, I said its ok for Lineker to break impartiality rules..? Did I say you or did I say 'the same people'?" You replied to my post. So I presume you were responding to my comment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. Lockdown rules were broken by Labour and the SNP as well I was talking about the hypocrisy of the whiners on the media all day yesterday. Who were 90% Conservative MPs. But because some others followed suit i guess that's all fine. They are just a bunch of virtue signalling snowflakes Like Lineker isn't? Show me the refugees he's taken in from those who crossed the Channel and entered the UK illegally in small boats? Oh wait. They're not Western/Caucasian white like the Ukrainians he's taken in (or offered to take in) are they?
Its a sign of intellectual stunting when the go to analogy by someone to criticise anything is to immediately reach for the "Nazi" label or connotation. Of which Lineker's comment was definitely the latter sort. If he had a point, he shot himself by giving Braverman and the Tories something to beat him like a pinata about, especially when Braverman's husband is a Jew himself.
A hundred different ways he could have spoken up against the illegal migration policy, as is his right to free speech. But no. Typical Lineker. He had to go choose the most inflammatory thing to say knowing full well how many people would read it and who would read it. Because he's not interested in simply making an opinion. He's fundamentally a celebrity, and all he wanted was the oxygen of the spotlight on saying the loudest statement on anything.
Why does he have to house refugees for him to be allowed to care about this issues? "Btw, is there a scheme in the UK where’s you can house refugees that have arrived by boat?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. The same people saying Lineker should be free to break impartiality rules, also want conservatives held to account over lockdown rule breaking.. That's ironic too. Works both ways. Can you point to where in my post, I said its ok for Lineker to break impartiality rules..? Did I say you or did I say 'the same people'? You replied to my post. So I presume you were responding to my comment. " I was responding to your comment. You brought up irony. If you had read what I wrote, you'd have saved yourself some time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
Are you looking to apportion ‘blame’ to every Twitter hashtag
I'm not looking to apportion any blame to any # except this one.
I don't mind Gary saying what he said, he's entitled to that. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
How des his tweet affect his impartiality in providing opinion on football performance?
How does it effect the impartiality of news presenters presenting political news and interviewing politicians?
Are there any circumstances where actions today can be compared to 1930s Germany or must that part of history be avoided in all public debate?
Gary isn't impartial when it come to football commentary. Not sure if you're a football fan but if you are you should know that.
Gary would've signed a contract and he has fallen foul of that. As I said, he is entitled to his opinion but he isnt free from consequences."Can you explain his bias or is it your subjective opinion? Why hasn't he been disciplined for that? It's his actual job. That is, of course, the least pertinent of the questions asked. You ignored the other two for some reason. Having demanded that I answer your questions precisely in other threads, perhaps you would have the courtesy to do the same? "How does it effect the impartiality of news presenters presenting political news and interviewing politicians? Are there any circumstances where actions today can be compared to 1930s Germany or must that part of history be avoided in all public debate?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. The same people saying Lineker should be free to break impartiality rules, also want conservatives held to account over lockdown rule breaking.. That's ironic too. Works both ways. Can you point to where in my post, I said its ok for Lineker to break impartiality rules..? Did I say you or did I say 'the same people'? You replied to my post. So I presume you were responding to my comment. I was responding to your comment. You brought up irony. If you had read what I wrote, you'd have saved yourself some time "Which came first the Chicken or the egg...? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
Are you looking to apportion ‘blame’ to every Twitter hashtag
I'm not looking to apportion any blame to any # except this one.
I don't mind Gary saying what he said, he's entitled to that. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
How des his tweet affect his impartiality in providing opinion on football performance?
How does it effect the impartiality of news presenters presenting political news and interviewing politicians?
Are there any circumstances where actions today can be compared to 1930s Germany or must that part of history be avoided in all public debate?
Gary isn't impartial when it come to football commentary. Not sure if you're a football fan but if you are you should know that.
Gary would've signed a contract and he has fallen foul of that. As I said, he is entitled to his opinion but he isnt free from consequences."What does it say in his contract about expressing his political opinions off BBC channels? Do you know, or are you making an uninformed assumption? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. Lockdown rules were broken by Labour and the SNP as well I was talking about the hypocrisy of the whiners on the media all day yesterday. Who were 90% Conservative MPs. But because some others followed suit i guess that's all fine. They are just a bunch of virtue signalling snowflakes Like Lineker isn't? Show me the refugees he's taken in from those who crossed the Channel and entered the UK illegally in small boats? Oh wait. They're not Western/Caucasian white like the Ukrainians he's taken in (or offered to take in) are they?
Its a sign of intellectual stunting when the go to analogy by someone to criticise anything is to immediately reach for the "Nazi" label or connotation. Of which Lineker's comment was definitely the latter sort. If he had a point, he shot himself by giving Braverman and the Tories something to beat him like a pinata about, especially when Braverman's husband is a Jew himself.
A hundred different ways he could have spoken up against the illegal migration policy, as is his right to free speech. But no. Typical Lineker. He had to go choose the most inflammatory thing to say knowing full well how many people would read it and who would read it. Because he's not interested in simply making an opinion. He's fundamentally a celebrity, and all he wanted was the oxygen of the spotlight on saying the loudest statement on anything. "Just another Champagne socialist | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
Are you looking to apportion ‘blame’ to every Twitter hashtag
I'm not looking to apportion any blame to any # except this one.
I don't mind Gary saying what he said, he's entitled to that. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
How des his tweet affect his impartiality in providing opinion on football performance?
How does it effect the impartiality of news presenters presenting political news and interviewing politicians?
Are there any circumstances where actions today can be compared to 1930s Germany or must that part of history be avoided in all public debate?
Gary isn't impartial when it come to football commentary. Not sure if you're a football fan but if you are you should know that.
Gary would've signed a contract and he has fallen foul of that. As I said, he is entitled to his opinion but he isnt free from consequences.
What does it say in his contract about expressing his political opinions off BBC channels?
Do you know, or are you making an uninformed assumption?"Why do you insist on asking 300 questions all at once? I obviously don't know what his contract says, however, if the BBC feel he has broken that contract, which they obviously do, they're within their right to discipline him, which is what is happening. The question on news presenters has nothing to do with Gary, neither does your other question. If you wish for answers to them, feel free to start a thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. Lockdown rules were broken by Labour and the SNP as well I was talking about the hypocrisy of the whiners on the media all day yesterday. Who were 90% Conservative MPs. But because some others followed suit i guess that's all fine. They are just a bunch of virtue signalling snowflakes Like Lineker isn't? Show me the refugees he's taken in from those who crossed the Channel and entered the UK illegally in small boats? Oh wait. They're not Western/Caucasian white like the Ukrainians he's taken in (or offered to take in) are they?
Its a sign of intellectual stunting when the go to analogy by someone to criticise anything is to immediately reach for the "Nazi" label or connotation. Of which Lineker's comment was definitely the latter sort. If he had a point, he shot himself by giving Braverman and the Tories something to beat him like a pinata about, especially when Braverman's husband is a Jew himself.
A hundred different ways he could have spoken up against the illegal migration policy, as is his right to free speech. But no. Typical Lineker. He had to go choose the most inflammatory thing to say knowing full well how many people would read it and who would read it. Because he's not interested in simply making an opinion. He's fundamentally a celebrity, and all he wanted was the oxygen of the spotlight on saying the loudest statement on anything.
Why does he have to house refugees for him to be allowed to care about this issues? "Its called putting money where your mouth is. If you already know the government is useless at helping whatever vulnerable group of people you want to carry the standard for, and you're in a financial and material position to do something about it, then do something about it yourself with others of your kind and fellow sailing to make an immediate difference first whilst also publicly putting pressure on the government with shaming through your own actions and rhetoric. There might be no legal channel to take in boat crossing refugees, but that's not stopped RNLI from helping rescue them regardless has it? I for one would like to see how big a financial patron Lineker is to the RNLI if he's on the case of helping the boat crossing refugees so much. As I said before. Easy to talk, not so easy to put money down to back your words. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. Lockdown rules were broken by Labour and the SNP as well I was talking about the hypocrisy of the whiners on the media all day yesterday. Who were 90% Conservative MPs. But because some others followed suit i guess that's all fine. They are just a bunch of virtue signalling snowflakes Like Lineker isn't? Show me the refugees he's taken in from those who crossed the Channel and entered the UK illegally in small boats? Oh wait. They're not Western/Caucasian white like the Ukrainians he's taken in (or offered to take in) are they?
Its a sign of intellectual stunting when the go to analogy by someone to criticise anything is to immediately reach for the "Nazi" label or connotation. Of which Lineker's comment was definitely the latter sort. If he had a point, he shot himself by giving Braverman and the Tories something to beat him like a pinata about, especially when Braverman's husband is a Jew himself.
A hundred different ways he could have spoken up against the illegal migration policy, as is his right to free speech. But no. Typical Lineker. He had to go choose the most inflammatory thing to say knowing full well how many people would read it and who would read it. Because he's not interested in simply making an opinion. He's fundamentally a celebrity, and all he wanted was the oxygen of the spotlight on saying the loudest statement on anything. "That is a lot of waffling for someone who clearly has not read the thread or knows their history… He said the language being used to demonise migrants was akin to that being used in 1930’s Germany…. He’s not wrong! … it was mps looking to play victim and the mail who used the nazi word… no one else! People have asked braverman to temper her language in the past and she hasn’t ! If she decides not to do that she left herself open to people making the comparisons… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. Lockdown rules were broken by Labour and the SNP as well I was talking about the hypocrisy of the whiners on the media all day yesterday. Who were 90% Conservative MPs. But because some others followed suit i guess that's all fine. They are just a bunch of virtue signalling snowflakes Like Lineker isn't? Show me the refugees he's taken in from those who crossed the Channel and entered the UK illegally in small boats? Oh wait. They're not Western/Caucasian white like the Ukrainians he's taken in (or offered to take in) are they?
Its a sign of intellectual stunting when the go to analogy by someone to criticise anything is to immediately reach for the "Nazi" label or connotation. Of which Lineker's comment was definitely the latter sort. If he had a point, he shot himself by giving Braverman and the Tories something to beat him like a pinata about, especially when Braverman's husband is a Jew himself.
A hundred different ways he could have spoken up against the illegal migration policy, as is his right to free speech. But no. Typical Lineker. He had to go choose the most inflammatory thing to say knowing full well how many people would read it and who would read it. Because he's not interested in simply making an opinion. He's fundamentally a celebrity, and all he wanted was the oxygen of the spotlight on saying the loudest statement on anything.
Why does he have to house refugees for him to be allowed to care about this issues?
Its called putting money where your mouth is. If you already know the government is useless at helping whatever vulnerable group of people you want to carry the standard for, and you're in a financial and material position to do something about it, then do something about it yourself with others of your kind and fellow sailing to make an immediate difference first whilst also publicly putting pressure on the government with shaming through your own actions and rhetoric.
There might be no legal channel to take in boat crossing refugees, but that's not stopped RNLI from helping rescue them regardless has it? I for one would like to see how big a financial patron Lineker is to the RNLI if he's on the case of helping the boat crossing refugees so much.
As I said before. Easy to talk, not so easy to put money down to back your words. "Do you put your money where your mouth is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can you explain his bias or is it your subjective opinion? Why hasn't he been disciplined for that? It's his actual job. " Go and watch Garybcommentating on Leicester or England, you'll see for yourself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. Lockdown rules were broken by Labour and the SNP as well I was talking about the hypocrisy of the whiners on the media all day yesterday. Who were 90% Conservative MPs. But because some others followed suit i guess that's all fine. They are just a bunch of virtue signalling snowflakes Like Lineker isn't? Show me the refugees he's taken in from those who crossed the Channel and entered the UK illegally in small boats? Oh wait. They're not Western/Caucasian white like the Ukrainians he's taken in (or offered to take in) are they?
Its a sign of intellectual stunting when the go to analogy by someone to criticise anything is to immediately reach for the "Nazi" label or connotation. Of which Lineker's comment was definitely the latter sort. If he had a point, he shot himself by giving Braverman and the Tories something to beat him like a pinata about, especially when Braverman's husband is a Jew himself.
A hundred different ways he could have spoken up against the illegal migration policy, as is his right to free speech. But no. Typical Lineker. He had to go choose the most inflammatory thing to say knowing full well how many people would read it and who would read it. Because he's not interested in simply making an opinion. He's fundamentally a celebrity, and all he wanted was the oxygen of the spotlight on saying the loudest statement on anything.
That is a lot of waffling for someone who clearly has not read the thread or knows their history…
He said the language being used to demonise migrants was akin to that being used in 1930’s Germany…. He’s not wrong! … it was mps looking to play victim and the mail who used the nazi word… no one else!
People have asked braverman to temper her language in the past and she hasn’t ! If she decides not to do that she left herself open to people making the comparisons…"A lot of assumptions about somebody you don't know anything about IRL, saying I don't know my history or on how this whole saga is playing out. If you don't say a word nobody will be calling you a mute. By the way don't bother replying. You're on my block list. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
Are you looking to apportion ‘blame’ to every Twitter hashtag
I'm not looking to apportion any blame to any # except this one.
I don't mind Gary saying what he said, he's entitled to that. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
How des his tweet affect his impartiality in providing opinion on football performance?
How does it effect the impartiality of news presenters presenting political news and interviewing politicians?
Are there any circumstances where actions today can be compared to 1930s Germany or must that part of history be avoided in all public debate?
Gary isn't impartial when it come to football commentary. Not sure if you're a football fan but if you are you should know that.
Gary would've signed a contract and he has fallen foul of that. As I said, he is entitled to his opinion but he isnt free from consequences.
What does it say in his contract about expressing his political opinions off BBC channels?
Do you know, or are you making an uninformed assumption?
Why do you insist on asking 300 questions all at once?
I obviously don't know what his contract says, however, if the BBC feel he has broken that contract, which they obviously do, they're within their right to discipline him, which is what is happening.
The question on news presenters has nothing to do with Gary, neither does your other question. If you wish for answers to them, feel free to start a thread.
"So three questions in one post is too much for you to manage? I will bear that in mind. I also note that no, you do not have the courtesy to respond as you expect others to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Impartiality must be "adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation". It must also "scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account", the guidelines say. What is the expectation of an audience to Gary Linker's personal Twitter account?" But BBC guidelines state: "There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters." Gary is best known for being BBC MOTD presenter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. Lockdown rules were broken by Labour and the SNP as well I was talking about the hypocrisy of the whiners on the media all day yesterday. Who were 90% Conservative MPs. But because some others followed suit i guess that's all fine. They are just a bunch of virtue signalling snowflakes Like Lineker isn't? Show me the refugees he's taken in from those who crossed the Channel and entered the UK illegally in small boats? Oh wait. They're not Western/Caucasian white like the Ukrainians he's taken in (or offered to take in) are they?
Its a sign of intellectual stunting when the go to analogy by someone to criticise anything is to immediately reach for the "Nazi" label or connotation. Of which Lineker's comment was definitely the latter sort. If he had a point, he shot himself by giving Braverman and the Tories something to beat him like a pinata about, especially when Braverman's husband is a Jew himself.
A hundred different ways he could have spoken up against the illegal migration policy, as is his right to free speech. But no. Typical Lineker. He had to go choose the most inflammatory thing to say knowing full well how many people would read it and who would read it. Because he's not interested in simply making an opinion. He's fundamentally a celebrity, and all he wanted was the oxygen of the spotlight on saying the loudest statement on anything.
Why does he have to house refugees for him to be allowed to care about this issues?
Its called putting money where your mouth is. If you already know the government is useless at helping whatever vulnerable group of people you want to carry the standard for, and you're in a financial and material position to do something about it, then do something about it yourself with others of your kind and fellow sailing to make an immediate difference first whilst also publicly putting pressure on the government with shaming through your own actions and rhetoric.
There might be no legal channel to take in boat crossing refugees, but that's not stopped RNLI from helping rescue them regardless has it? I for one would like to see how big a financial patron Lineker is to the RNLI if he's on the case of helping the boat crossing refugees so much.
As I said before. Easy to talk, not so easy to put money down to back your words.
Do you put your money where your mouth is? "I've spoken up on other things in the past, and you've no idea the personal and financial price me and my family has paid for it, which is why I'm even back in the UK now to begin with. And as for everything else, I don't bother moralising about any issue. There are plenty of ways to oppose anything in the world without trying to appeal to morality to do so. That's how I get to have an opinion on anything without needing to put chips down on the table first. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He didn’t call them Nazis,
Gary has influence, the statement he made led to #bravermanisanazi. You can argue all you like that he didn't call her a Nazi. Just because he didn't use that word, doesn't mean hebis free of any fallout.
Gary knew what he was doing.
Because that was the way she decided to attack him and make that accusation…he never said that
Ironically she has actually been asked to temper her language with regards to migrants before….. by the families of holocaust victims
She refused…….
I'm not really sure what you're stating here? Braverman attacked Lineker? Leading to #bravermanisanazi?
Are you looking to apportion ‘blame’ to every Twitter hashtag
I'm not looking to apportion any blame to any # except this one.
I don't mind Gary saying what he said, he's entitled to that. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
How des his tweet affect his impartiality in providing opinion on football performance?
How does it effect the impartiality of news presenters presenting political news and interviewing politicians?
Are there any circumstances where actions today can be compared to 1930s Germany or must that part of history be avoided in all public debate?
Gary isn't impartial when it come to football commentary. Not sure if you're a football fan but if you are you should know that.
Gary would've signed a contract and he has fallen foul of that. As I said, he is entitled to his opinion but he isnt free from consequences.
What does it say in his contract about expressing his political opinions off BBC channels?
Do you know, or are you making an uninformed assumption?
Why do you insist on asking 300 questions all at once?
I obviously don't know what his contract says, however, if the BBC feel he has broken that contract, which they obviously do, they're within their right to discipline him, which is what is happening.
The question on news presenters has nothing to do with Gary, neither does your other question. If you wish for answers to them, feel free to start a thread.
So three questions in one post is too much for you to manage?
I will bear that in mind. I also note that no, you do not have the courtesy to respond as you expect others to."It's not just 3 questions, I answer those and you have another 3, I answer those and there's another 3 etc etc. I told you they have nothing to do with this thread, start another. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. Lockdown rules were broken by Labour and the SNP as well I was talking about the hypocrisy of the whiners on the media all day yesterday. Who were 90% Conservative MPs. But because some others followed suit i guess that's all fine. They are just a bunch of virtue signalling snowflakes Like Lineker isn't? Show me the refugees he's taken in from those who crossed the Channel and entered the UK illegally in small boats? Oh wait. They're not Western/Caucasian white like the Ukrainians he's taken in (or offered to take in) are they?
Its a sign of intellectual stunting when the go to analogy by someone to criticise anything is to immediately reach for the "Nazi" label or connotation. Of which Lineker's comment was definitely the latter sort. If he had a point, he shot himself by giving Braverman and the Tories something to beat him like a pinata about, especially when Braverman's husband is a Jew himself.
A hundred different ways he could have spoken up against the illegal migration policy, as is his right to free speech. But no. Typical Lineker. He had to go choose the most inflammatory thing to say knowing full well how many people would read it and who would read it. Because he's not interested in simply making an opinion. He's fundamentally a celebrity, and all he wanted was the oxygen of the spotlight on saying the loudest statement on anything.
Why does he have to house refugees for him to be allowed to care about this issues?
Its called putting money where your mouth is. If you already know the government is useless at helping whatever vulnerable group of people you want to carry the standard for, and you're in a financial and material position to do something about it, then do something about it yourself with others of your kind and fellow sailing to make an immediate difference first whilst also publicly putting pressure on the government with shaming through your own actions and rhetoric.
There might be no legal channel to take in boat crossing refugees, but that's not stopped RNLI from helping rescue them regardless has it? I for one would like to see how big a financial patron Lineker is to the RNLI if he's on the case of helping the boat crossing refugees so much.
As I said before. Easy to talk, not so easy to put money down to back your words.
Do you put your money where your mouth is?
I've spoken up on other things in the past, and you've no idea the personal and financial price me and my family has paid for it, which is why I'm even back in the UK now to begin with.
And as for everything else, I don't bother moralising about any issue. There are plenty of ways to oppose anything in the world without trying to appeal to morality to do so. That's how I get to have an opinion on anything without needing to put chips down on the table first. "But you’re expecting Gary Lineker to publicise any donations or help he has given to charities? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. Lockdown rules were broken by Labour and the SNP as well I was talking about the hypocrisy of the whiners on the media all day yesterday. Who were 90% Conservative MPs. But because some others followed suit i guess that's all fine. They are just a bunch of virtue signalling snowflakes Like Lineker isn't? Show me the refugees he's taken in from those who crossed the Channel and entered the UK illegally in small boats? Oh wait. They're not Western/Caucasian white like the Ukrainians he's taken in (or offered to take in) are they?
Its a sign of intellectual stunting when the go to analogy by someone to criticise anything is to immediately reach for the "Nazi" label or connotation. Of which Lineker's comment was definitely the latter sort. If he had a point, he shot himself by giving Braverman and the Tories something to beat him like a pinata about, especially when Braverman's husband is a Jew himself.
A hundred different ways he could have spoken up against the illegal migration policy, as is his right to free speech. But no. Typical Lineker. He had to go choose the most inflammatory thing to say knowing full well how many people would read it and who would read it. Because he's not interested in simply making an opinion. He's fundamentally a celebrity, and all he wanted was the oxygen of the spotlight on saying the loudest statement on anything.
That is a lot of waffling for someone who clearly has not read the thread or knows their history…
He said the language being used to demonise migrants was akin to that being used in 1930’s Germany…. He’s not wrong! … it was mps looking to play victim and the mail who used the nazi word… no one else!
People have asked braverman to temper her language in the past and she hasn’t ! If she decides not to do that she left herself open to people making the comparisons…
A lot of assumptions about somebody you don't know anything about IRL, saying I don't know my history or on how this whole saga is playing out.
If you don't say a word nobody will be calling you a mute.
By the way don't bother replying. You're on my block list. "Erm… the forum is a public space therefore I will reply to anything I deem fit to.. so long as it is not offensive…. I will have an adult conversation with anyone and will reply in an adult manner… As has been say… where is the offence in her language with that part of history.. especially with the irony of her being asked to temper her language on migrants by both the families of holocaust victims and a holocaust survivor themself… to which she batted away those criticisms! So what’s different this time around? The fact that people thought about the comparison and thought “that’s not a bad point actually “ Maybe the lesson that should be taken is that the way language is used does matter, especially since she has used it in both public speeches and in the House of Commons… so they were not “off the cuff” they were deliberate… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. Lockdown rules were broken by Labour and the SNP as well I was talking about the hypocrisy of the whiners on the media all day yesterday. Who were 90% Conservative MPs. But because some others followed suit i guess that's all fine. They are just a bunch of virtue signalling snowflakes Like Lineker isn't? Show me the refugees he's taken in from those who crossed the Channel and entered the UK illegally in small boats? Oh wait. They're not Western/Caucasian white like the Ukrainians he's taken in (or offered to take in) are they?
Its a sign of intellectual stunting when the go to analogy by someone to criticise anything is to immediately reach for the "Nazi" label or connotation. Of which Lineker's comment was definitely the latter sort. If he had a point, he shot himself by giving Braverman and the Tories something to beat him like a pinata about, especially when Braverman's husband is a Jew himself.
A hundred different ways he could have spoken up against the illegal migration policy, as is his right to free speech. But no. Typical Lineker. He had to go choose the most inflammatory thing to say knowing full well how many people would read it and who would read it. Because he's not interested in simply making an opinion. He's fundamentally a celebrity, and all he wanted was the oxygen of the spotlight on saying the loudest statement on anything.
That is a lot of waffling for someone who clearly has not read the thread or knows their history…
He said the language being used to demonise migrants was akin to that being used in 1930’s Germany…. He’s not wrong! … it was mps looking to play victim and the mail who used the nazi word… no one else!
People have asked braverman to temper her language in the past and she hasn’t ! If she decides not to do that she left herself open to people making the comparisons…
A lot of assumptions about somebody you don't know anything about IRL, saying I don't know my history or on how this whole saga is playing out.
If you don't say a word nobody will be calling you a mute.
By the way don't bother replying. You're on my block list.
Erm… the forum is a public space therefore I will reply to anything I deem fit to.. so long as it is not offensive….
I will have an adult conversation with anyone and will reply in an adult manner…
As has been say… where is the offence in her language with that part of history.. especially with the irony of her being asked to temper her language on migrants by both the families of holocaust victims and a holocaust survivor themself… to which she batted away those criticisms!
So what’s different this time around? The fact that people thought about the comparison and thought “that’s not a bad point actually “
Maybe the lesson that should be taken is that the way language is used does matter, especially since she has used it in both public speeches and in the House of Commons… so they were not “off the cuff” they were deliberate…"So in short, her language matters, his language doesn't? Your partisanship bias is very glaring. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The irony of all Conservative MPs whining on the media yesterday about Lineker breaking the BBCs impartiality code shouldn't be lost on anybody. This from a party who's hierarchy continually broke the lockdown rules and other ministerial codes. Lockdown rules were broken by Labour and the SNP as well I was talking about the hypocrisy of the whiners on the media all day yesterday. Who were 90% Conservative MPs. But because some others followed suit i guess that's all fine. They are just a bunch of virtue signalling snowflakes Like Lineker isn't? Show me the refugees he's taken in from those who crossed the Channel and entered the UK illegally in small boats? Oh wait. They're not Western/Caucasian white like the Ukrainians he's taken in (or offered to take in) are they?
Its a sign of intellectual stunting when the go to analogy by someone to criticise anything is to immediately reach for the "Nazi" label or connotation. Of which Lineker's comment was definitely the latter sort. If he had a point, he shot himself by giving Braverman and the Tories something to beat him like a pinata about, especially when Braverman's husband is a Jew himself.
A hundred different ways he could have spoken up against the illegal migration policy, as is his right to free speech. But no. Typical Lineker. He had to go choose the most inflammatory thing to say knowing full well how many people would read it and who would read it. Because he's not interested in simply making an opinion. He's fundamentally a celebrity, and all he wanted was the oxygen of the spotlight on saying the loudest statement on anything.
Why does he have to house refugees for him to be allowed to care about this issues?
Its called putting money where your mouth is. If you already know the government is useless at helping whatever vulnerable group of people you want to carry the standard for, and you're in a financial and material position to do something about it, then do something about it yourself with others of your kind and fellow sailing to make an immediate difference first whilst also publicly putting pressure on the government with shaming through your own actions and rhetoric.
There might be no legal channel to take in boat crossing refugees, but that's not stopped RNLI from helping rescue them regardless has it? I for one would like to see how big a financial patron Lineker is to the RNLI if he's on the case of helping the boat crossing refugees so much.
As I said before. Easy to talk, not so easy to put money down to back your words. "This is classic whataboutery, but when you have such odd expectations it's pertinent to ask. So do you take in the homeless and care for veterans with mental health problems? Do you have an elderly care home? Fight fires, clean litter from the countryside, maintain nuclear reactor safety, catch criminals? Do you just not care enough about these things? Must you personally act on everything that you express an opinion on? Do you have a pressure group to ensure that celebrities do not abuse their notoriety? Can the events of the 1930s be discussed in any public forum in comparison to actions carried out today or must that part of history never be mentioned? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
