Display posts from previous
Sort by

Re: Gary Lineker.

16 by NearlyDead
Taunton Iron Cider wrote: March 8th, 2023, 3:53 pm I’m a believer in free speech but not in Gary Lineker who seeks to grab headlines when it suits him. I certainly don’t recall him complaining about the slavery and labour exploitation issues in Qatar whilst out there lining his pockets on World Cup duties.
Your recall is less than perfect then, as comment he did, during the opening match, with a 2 or 3 minute monologue (IIRC). And he got slammed by the Qataris (at least one in particular) for doing so.

He also made Twitter references, direct or indirect, but I'm not on Twatfacemusk so can't really search through tweets on that.

Re: Gary Lineker.

17 by DeePeeNCAFC
To me, Lineker does come over as a champagne socialist at times, reminded of the time a couple of years ago when he took in an asylum seeker for 2 weeks to highlight a similar message. No problem with millionaires having a conscience but he does seem to crave the attention.

More importantly though, the Beeb are now turning us into an authoritarian state in my view. Their coverage of the war in Ukraine has been so one-sided yet they condemn Putin for silencing his own state media. I think the truth is somewhere between the two accounts.

Match of the Day will now not feature any presenter or pundits tomorrow - might make it worth watching. I’d have preferred it if the Beeb showed a sense of humour and left Lineker’s chair empty in the same way that Have I Got News for You placed a tub of lard on the chair when Roy Hattersley refused to appear.

Re: Gary Lineker.

18 by CathedralCounty
Bangitintrnet wrote: March 8th, 2023, 2:46 pm Copied from elsewhere, and spot on IMO


Tories - tough on:
Nurses
Railway workers
Teachers
Refugees
Small boats
Climate change protesters
Match or the Day presenters

Soft on:
Sex pests in their own party
Dodgy PPE contracts
Non Doms
Energy companies profits
Sewage dumpers
Ex-PM’s found guilty of breaking the law and lying about it
Well for the “tough on” quite right! A bunch of already well paid people holding the county to ransom at a time of economic turmoil, the hoo rah around small boats is bowlox I agree but we have to try something surely?! Climate change protesters were all but offered free back rubs so not sure if anyone was “tough on” them?! And sure lineker is big and ugly and indeed wealthy enough not to give two hoots.

On the “soft on” for “Tories” read any other party in any developed country in history ever.

And for the record I vote labour.

Re: Gary Lineker.

19 by Snowman
People on the left of the political spectrum cant complain about cancel culture. They invented it. This time the shoe is on the other foot.

I dont think the BBC management had much of a choice here. If you work for the BBC either as an employee or as a contractor as Gary Lineker is, then you have to follow the terms of your contract. Apparently the BBC contract says that you have to remain impartial on political matters. He didn't so he is in breach of his contract. If they allowed him to get away with it then clearly their impartiality policy isn't worth the paper it's written on and then the future of the BBC funding model is on the line.

BTW he's not the first person to get suspended or fired by the BBC, eg Kenny Everett (twice), Johnathon Ross, Danny Baker, I'm sure there are lots of others.

If I was Lineker I would resign at this point and go and work somewhere else where he can speak freely without consequence. He is a good presenter. I am sure he would pick up a good job.

I'm all in favour of free speech and different points of view but I also believe that if you work for a national broadcaster paid for by the public then you have to be impartial.

Re: Gary Lineker.

20 by DeePeeNCAFC
Snowman wrote: March 10th, 2023, 10:31 pm BTW he's not the first person to get suspended or fired by the BBC, eg Kenny Everett (twice), Johnathon Ross, Danny Baker, I'm sure there are lots of others.
But but but! What about those similar BBC figures who have made political comments (Alan Sugar, Jeremy Clarkson) and not been taken off air. Why the double standards? Clarkson told striking workers he’d shoot them in the head. Sugar told Mick Lynch to stop spouting $hite and get his workers back to work.

Let’s face it, since Cameron was in power, the Beeb has become a state-controlled voice in the same way we criticise the Koreans, China and Russia for controlling their state media and stifling free speech and the truth.

For what it’s worth, as a former immigration manager, I do see holes in HMG’s approach to stopping migrants coming here by small boat and I feel certain Cruella Braverman’s latest ‘law’ will be successfully challenged in the courts next year and we’ll be back to square one. There’s only one way to solve this crisis, and that’s to get permission to screen migrants’ asylum claims from a base in Northern France and keep them there until we make a decision.

Re: Gary Lineker.

21 by Bangitintrnet
DeePeeNCAFC wrote: March 10th, 2023, 11:08 pm
Snowman wrote: March 10th, 2023, 10:31 pm BTW he's not the first person to get suspended or fired by the BBC, eg Kenny Everett (twice), Johnathon Ross, Danny Baker, I'm sure there are lots of others.
But but but! What about those similar BBC figures who have made political comments (Alan Sugar, Jeremy Clarkson) and not been taken off air. Why the double standards? Clarkson told striking workers he’d shoot them in the head. Sugar told Mick Lynch to stop spouting $hite and get his workers back to work.

Let’s face it, since Cameron was in power, the Beeb has become a state-controlled voice in the same way we criticise the Koreans, China and Russia for controlling their state media and stifling free speech and the truth.

For what it’s worth, as a former immigration manager, I do see holes in HMG’s approach to stopping migrants coming here by small boat and I feel certain Cruella Braverman’s latest ‘law’ will be successfully challenged in the courts next year and we’ll be back to square one. There’s only one way to solve this crisis, and that’s to get permission to screen migrants’ asylum claims from a base in Northern France and keep them there until we make a decision.
That would mean intercepting small boats at sea and effectively risking lives of people who are trying to escape conflicts, to return them to a country that they had just passed through. Half of asylum seekers are from the middle East, and once in the hands of people traffickers have no idea of where they have passed through, or their final destination. That is chosen by the traffickers, on the basis of who they know at the other end who can enslave them. These are desperate people who are just trying to survive, not people who prefer UK to France or even Rwanda for that matter.

Re: Gary Lineker.

23 by DeePeeNCAFC
[quote=Bangitintrnet.
[/quote]
That would mean intercepting small boats at sea and effectively risking lives of people who are trying to escape conflicts, to return them to a country that they had just passed through. Half of asylum seekers are from the middle East, and once in the hands of people traffickers have no idea of where they have passed through, or their final destination. That is chosen by the traffickers, on the basis of who they know at the other end who can enslave them. These are desperate people who are just trying to survive, not people who prefer UK to France or even Rwanda for that matter.
[/quote]

No, it wouldn’t - quite the opposite in fact.

I’m talking about setting up a UK asylum screening centre in Northern France. Migrants seeking asylum then gave no need to risk their lives or pay the people traffickers to get them across the water. Initial review of their asylum case is done in France, if it looks like a genuine case then we transport them safely to the UK and complete the asylum screening process. Given that 60-70% of recent claims have been successful we therefore stop 60-70% of the small boat trips.

Claims not successful at first review - claimants are told this and if they subsequently try to cross the Channel then we send them back, because we know who they are, have their fingerprints etc from the initial case.

Re: Gary Lineker.

24 by Stan A. Einstein
Speaking as an immigration lawyer, yes I was one of those lefty lawyers the Tories hate, a few observations.

Firstly leaving the European Convention on Human rights. Doubtful. Other European countries will retaliate. It's simply dog whistle politics. Hoping that marginalized and uneducated voters will fall for the populist agenda. The courts strike the bill down. The Tories then blame the lefty judges.
By the way some facts. The UK takes far fewer refugees and displaced persons than countries such as France and Germany. And per capita is one of the least welcoming European states.
Further. Returns of migrants to safe countries. No problem as it could be done under the Dublin Convention. At least it could until the UK left the EU. Left an EU wide fingerprint identification process.
Rwanda? Do the maths. If 50,000 enter via small boats or other 'illegal' methods does anyone really believe that two Jumbo jets a week will be flying to central Africa? Total bollox and a waste of money.
If you really want to stop people risking their lives in small boats there are two things you can do. One target the criminal gangs which will help. But if you really want to do this get an international agreement to stop the supply of weapons. Brits, Yanks, Ruskies, Austrians and Czechs amongst the worse for making money as merchants of death.
Finally look at what Lineker said. He didn't say that the Tories were as bad as the Nazis. What he said was that the Tories were cruel and were using language reminiscent of 1930s Germany. I agree.
Oh and the BBC are not as great as the BBC like to tell you. Personally for me the best news channel for unbiased news is Al Jazeera.

Re: Gary Lineker.

27 by OLDCROMWELLIAN
UPTHEPORT wrote: March 11th, 2023, 12:34 pm Is this the Gary Lineker who you hardly heard a peep out of presenting on the Qatar World Cup

Certainly took the money

And I'm very left leaning
[/quote

That's not true. But of course his adverse comments on the Qatar World Cup didn't get the same level of response as criticism of the UK government has.

Re: Gary Lineker.

28 by CathedralCounty
For me it just seems odd and hypocritical of the great and not so good to be backing Lineker, of all the free speech martyrs to pick don’t think he is the right choice, lots of normal people have been “cancelled”, arrested, sacked unjustly for their tweets and other social media activities (some far more anodyne than GL’s) and people remained silent and Matt le Tissier was dropped like a stone for publicly stating some of his [now vindicated] scepticism around Covid who spoke up for him? Why Lineker? The spinelessness of people over countless others who have been punished (far more harshly and devastatingly than Lineker) has been exposed by this.

Re: Gary Lineker.

29 by OLDCROMWELLIAN
mad norm wrote: March 8th, 2023, 5:50 pm
Taunton Iron Cider wrote: March 8th, 2023, 3:53 pm I’m a believer in free speech but not in Gary Lineker who seeks to grab headlines when it suits him. I certainly don’t recall him complaining about the slavery and labour exploitation issues in Qatar whilst out there lining his pockets on World Cup duties.
Very good comment
It's far easier to be a believer in the free speech of others when they criticise those things that you yourself are critical of; yet not so easy when they are critical of matters which you don't believe is merited.
Post Reply

Return to “Everything Else”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users