Gary Lineker: Asylum policy comments and the BBC

[Shaggy_Dog_]

Jeremy Clarkson has been confirmed as a stand-in for tomorrow night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even Clarkson has now ruled himself out.

 

[Tom]

Boris Johnson, Ann Widdecombe and Nigel Farage it is then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RyanUK]

Some good debate on this here. I’m disgusted by the way the BBC are handling this entire situation. Slowly, it is changing and in parts, for the worse. That original tweet was nothing to do with the BBC but they made it their business.

I just give the British people one clear instruction this weekend - Boycott Match of The Day!

Cycling Mikey...
The bloke is a liar through and through???
He highlights dangerous driving and people on mobile phones repeatedly...not lies.
He tries to stop people getting injured by incompetent drivers...voluntary community service.
"The Met are sick of him"...do you have the slightest shred of evidence for this...you clearly hate him...I have heard or seen nothing from the Met to support your claim at all.
"I don't condone violence, but he has deserved some of the way people have reacted to him"...sounds like condoning violence to me...sorry.
Hid dad died because of illegal driving...sounds like a genuine and fair reason to campaign to me...but I suppose he should just take it on the chin and let the car drivers keep breaking the law as they feel fit.
I don't care where he comes from, or the relevance of where he lives, but if pointing out his location makes you happy...keep biggin it up.
Keep it up Mikey, you are doing a cracking job.

Yes, he’s a phenomenal bullshitter. Do you use Twitter or read his tweets? He might highlight dangerous driving etc but he does it so much, eventually he gets criticism where people on turn him because they’ve had enough of him. There’s no evidence from the Met themselves about them being sick of him because that would be plain stupid. But many have said it over the years, on Twitter - it’s out there, just search for it. I’m codoning violence because the way others have reacted to him is…right? OK, whatever! Sounds to me like you’re a supporter of his. I don’t hate him because hate is a strong word - but I’m not exactly a fan of him either.

 

[Shaggy_Dog_]

Boris Johnson, Ann Widdecombe and Nigel Farage it is then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe the BBC could transfer in a guest pundit from another league. I’m sure Paolo Di Canio would raise his right arm in the air if they asked for any volunteers…

 

[Dave]

I understand completely what you're saying Dave. However, I would say that it's worth remembering that during the past decade the landscape of viewing TV and paying for it has shifted massively (Do I want to pay for the BBC license, shall I pay for Netflix etc instead). I would argue (some may disagree) that also during this period the BBC has had an un-naturally fast shift towards traditionally left-leaning causes. Personally, if I was running the BBC I would have just tried to do what they were previously known for and to try to report well and use capable people to do so.

Except that’s not the current issue is it?

Should the BBC try and report well.. yes. Does it do that? To some degree.

The left and the right kind of agreed on that and despite some blips it sort of toed that line. Not perfect but it always held that if an equal number of left and right wing folk complained it had a good balance and mostly governments kept their distance. But ultimately the impartiality was for news and current affairs.

The issue now is the right keep pushing on who the impartiality should be applied to.

So today it’s a football pundit.

Who is it tomorrow?

Should everyone employed or even sub-contracted to the BBC be gagged?

The biggest concern from my point is his comment never mentioned the Nazi’s it mentioned Germany in the 1930’s. Evil doesn’t launch onto the stage saying “kill people”, it subtly invades the narrative, it comes in gentle.

In came gentle into the Weimar republic in the 1930’s, a population who where at the time in specific parts one of the most left wing liberal places in Europe. Over a decade it slowly turned into something far more sinister.

It’s why history education is so important, because big things in history rarely come in big packages, they come in the night.

 

[Craig]

This is possibly the best takedown of the whole situation that I've seen (there's nothing sensitive in the video)


From: https://twitter.com/SkyKaveh/status/1634288030658842641

 

[Gumbo_B]

I understand completely what you're saying Dave. However, I would say that it's worth remembering that during the past decade the landscape of viewing TV and paying for it has shifted massively (Do I want to pay for the BBC license, shall I pay for Netflix etc instead). I would argue (some may disagree) that also during this period the BBC has had an un-naturally fast shift towards traditionally left-leaning causes. Personally, if I was running the BBC I would have just tried to do what they were previously known for and to try to report well and use capable people to do so.

I'll disagree. The BBC employs a lot of educated people to provide educational content. They have done this consistently over the years because that is their purpose.

Educated people are generally left leaning. The reasons for this are recorded in scientific research.

What has changed in the recent past is the political leanings of the popular media, leaving the BBC looking more left wing than the 'popular' press.

 

[Benzin]

From: https://twitter.com/chrishainstock/status/1634252083892199437


The BBC have also had to issue apologies to Fiona Bruce practically defending domestic abuse from Stanley Johnson and no one challenging Nadine Dorries for accusing nonsense about Sue Grey. Key with that video is how the presenter is essentially framing Campbell as being a stooge of Linekar therefore he cannot have an impartial opinion.

They're essentially a mouthpiece for the Tories now. Hence you get those great balanced line ups of 3 Tories and a Left Winger on Question Time.

Complete mess and a natural situation when the incumbent government basically tell you to tow the line otherwise you'll lose most of your budget.

It's more noticeable now with many articles and the like that happen to be very pro-Tory viewpoints. Shame Channel 4 can't one up with some highlights due to football being up its own financial arse.

 

[Craig]

As expected, the BBC are going ahead with MOTD without any live presenters:

Some of our pundits have said that they don't wish to appear on the programme while we seek to resolve the situation with Gary.

We understand their position and we have decided that the programme will focus on match action without studio presentation or punditry

"Some of our pundits". Understatement right there!

 

[Benzin]

As expected, the BBC are going ahead with MOTD without any live presenters:

"Some of our pundits". Understatement right there!

Best MotD in years then sadly. The punditry never added anything to it as most of the good quality ones are on Sky or BT.

Similar for the highlights which are all on YouTube shortly after full time. Probably an excuse to kill the show dead at this rate.

 

[Jb85]

No pundits tomorrow on MOTD

 

[Tom]

Literally no one in the entirety country that knows the offside rule wants to do it.

 

[Dave]

It’s fair to say for the first time in my life football has actually become interesting.

 

[Gumbo_B]

No pundits plays into Sky's hands because highlights only motd is just empty highlights. Stuff we can all watch on YouTube.

When your team has won you want to hear respected football voices telling you how good they were. Murdoch hates that we get that for free and now we won't.

The c###s are taking over the asylum.

 

[BarryZola]

Except that’s not the current issue is it?

Should the BBC try and report well.. yes. Does it do that? To some degree.

The left and the right kind of agreed on that and despite some blips it sort of toed that line. Not perfect but it always held that if an equal number of left and right wing folk complained it had a good balance and mostly governments kept their distance. But ultimately the impartiality was for news and current affairs.

The issue now is the right keep pushing on who the impartiality should be applied to.

So today it’s a football pundit.

Who is it tomorrow?

Should everyone employed or even sub-contracted to the BBC be gagged?

The biggest concern from my point is his comment never mentioned the Nazi’s it mentioned Germany in the 1930’s. Evil doesn’t launch onto the stage saying “kill people”, it subtly invades the narrative, it comes in gentle.

In came gentle into the Weimar republic in the 1930’s, a population who where at the time in specific parts one of the most left wing liberal places in Europe. Over a decade it slowly turned into something far more sinister.

It’s why history education is so important, because big things in history rarely come in big packages, they come in the night.

This is the thing though. I know that the likes of yourself (as I've been aware of your posts etc for years) will almost certainly be aware of what he meant by saying 1930s Germany. However, I also think that by Gary stating the same thing to the general public in relatively few words who (let's be honest) aren't as clued up as most in certain areas of history, it can easily be interpreted by some as being 'Nazi'. He's not daft. I'm not saying that's 100% what he meant. However, I wouldn't rule out that he wanted people to bring up those images though. I think it may be a little disingenuous on his part, possibly.

 

[Dave]

This is the thing though. I know that the likes of yourself (as I've been aware of your posts etc for years) will almost certainly be aware of what he meant by saying 1930s Germany. However, I also think that by Gary stating the same thing to the general public in relatively few words who (let's be honest) aren't as clued up as most in certain areas of history, it can easily be interpreted by some as being 'Nazi'. He's not daft. I'm not saying that's 100% what he meant. However, I wouldn't rule out that he wanted people to bring up those images though. I think it may be a little disingenuous on his part, possibly.

If you go by that logic then it means everyone who has a “following” has to work based on the (for want of a better phrase) “lowest common denominator”.

But you do want people to think of the Nazi’s as the end point, that’s the issue, it starts with subtlety and can if all the factors align and you have a dark shadow on your luck end in atrocity. That’s not to say the current government are Nazi’s, it’s just saying “down that road there is a dark destination”

 

[Benzin]

This is the thing though. I know that the likes of yourself (as I've been aware of your posts etc for years) will almost certainly be aware of what he meant by saying 1930s Germany. However, I also think that by Gary stating the same thing to the general public in relatively few words who (let's be honest) aren't as clued up as most in certain areas of history, it can easily be interpreted by some as being 'Nazi'. He's not daft. I'm not saying that's 100% what he meant. However, I wouldn't rule out that he wanted people to bring up those images though. I think it may be a little disingenuous on his part, possibly.

Is stating that the actions being pursued by this government reminiscent of those actions followed by a political party renown for their particular actions wrong though?

End of day it was his own personal opinion. And those who despise cancel culture and adore freedom of speech suddenly want him cancelled for it. Funny that.

 

[BarryZola]

Is stating that the actions being pursued by this government reminiscent of those actions followed by a political party renown for their particular actions wrong though?

End of day it was his own personal opinion. And those who despise cancel culture and adore freedom of speech suddenly want him cancelled for it. Funny that.

To be fair, I'm not overly bothered if he's cancelled or not. He'll be a success whatever he does, and I don't pay for a TV license.
As for the first line, I think it is wrong. I think that this is a different situation and this is a publicity move by a pathetic government desperate to cling on. Their latest moves to ban 'boat people' from claiming asylum will not work. Even if it did, it would take 10 years to get through the courts anyway.

 

[Tom]

Those at the top of the government have calculated that a (deeper) shift to fascism is the Conservative Party's only hope for turning around the polls sufficiently to hang on at the next election.

Sadly it's not as stupid a calculation as it may seem with the electoral system we have. I don't think their plan will work sufficiently, but there will be some voters who had turned away from them that will be drawn back by all this - but fortunately and if I am right, not enough.

 

[BarryZola]

Those at the top of the government have calculated that a (deeper) shift to fascism is the Conservative Party's only hope for turning around the polls sufficiently to hang on at the next election.

Sadly it's not as stupid a calculation as it may seem with the electoral system we have. I don't think their plan will work sufficiently, but there will be some voters who had turned away from them that will be drawn back by all this - but fortunately and if I am right, not enough.

Yes, I also believe this Tom. As you've said, it probably won't be enough to bring about another Tory government. Not enough people (including myself) will forgive them for the absolute calamity and the, to be honest, potentially fraudulant activity they've been upto. I'm the middle ground none genius, not too stupid (I hope) floating voter. My impression is that this Tory party is finished now, as I also said on this forum a year or two back. Labour will smash into power at the next elections.