Couldn't think - from Dec 2022

alderz

Yeoldhammer said:

What i find most odd is the BBC who have stood him down (effectively suspended him) are (or were) doing rolling news coverage on stepping him down ?

Can you imagine being suspended by your boss then the HR department putting up a rolling news coverage inviting comment on whether it was fair or not ?

Whilst i understand Gary Linekar is a high profile figure ? it seems wild that someone being shutdown for breaching impartiality is then having a rolling news coverage done about it lol.

Reading this BBC article about how royally the BBC have messed up is really weird.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64922674

ASLEFshrugged

Sky Sports highlights on YouTube do have commentary but obviously BBC won't be able to use those

Fortuneseeker

Apologies but I am all for freedom of speech but what is troubling me here is all this anti Tory this anti Tory that coming from Gary Neville etc is no one is actually bothered about the content of what Lineker said. He could have used different words to get over a valid argument but made comparisons with Germany in the 1930's. You don't need to look to far to see what happened then and IMHO it isn't a good comparison. Sorry if I have understood what he said wrong, if so could someone please explain to me where I have?

Hamstew

alderz said:

Hamstew said:

alderz said:

You know that that exists already though? Sky post highlights of every PL game on YouTube for free. Personally I like to watch MOTD because I’m curious of what different pundits say about us.

That has commentary though right? And it's not all in one show?

I don’t know if it has commentary actually. I usually watch it on mute in bed while other stuff I don’t care about is on TV

Love Island?

ASLEFshrugged

Daily Mirror has started a petition to reinstate Lineker

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/reinstate-gary-lineker-to-match-of-the-day?source=twitter_share_button&utm_medium=socialshare&utm_source=twitter&share=031fd13d-3f70-41b9-aea8-05ce0a1cd9df

ASLEFshrugged

Lineker was repeating a criticism of Suella Braverman's language made by Joan Salter at a constituency meeting in January.

“I am a child survivor of the Holocaust.

“In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947.

“When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others.

“Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?”

Salter was awarded an MBE in 2018 for her work with the Holocaust Educational Trust

Slacker

alderz

Fortuneseeker said:

Apologies but I am all for freedom of speech but what is troubling me here is all this anti Tory this anti Tory that coming from Gary Neville etc is no one is actually bothered about the content of what Lineker said. He could have used different words to get over a valid argument but made comparisons with Germany in the 1930's. You don't need to look to far to see what happened then and IMHO it isn't a good comparison. Sorry if I have understood what he said wrong, if so could someone please explain to me where I have?

He didn’t compare the policy. He compared the language. ie, nazi party calling Jews vermin, tory party calling asylum seekers an invasion (or a swarm, a few years ago). He’s entirely correct.

PrestonHammer

All the Torys and the BBC had to say was "Mr Lineker is entitled to his opinion, as is anybody else, as we live in a free society." By making a mountain out of a mole hole, it's just made the story far bigger than it needed to be.

BubblesNeverDies

PrestonHammer said:

All the Torys and the BBC had to say was "Mr Lineker is entitled to his opinion, as is anybody else, as we live in a free society." By making a mountain out of a mole hole, it's just made the story far bigger than it needed to be.

That would be too much like common sense.

buffybegood

ASLEFshrugged said:

Maybe if there was a legal way for them to apply for asylum they wouldn't be risking their lives to come across the Channel in boats

Except Priti Patel removed it in April under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022

But the people crossing in small boats are in a safe coutry ie France, so they're hardly being refused entry from a country that is persecuting them or threatening their safety. They're economic migrants, they could safely stay in France or other parts of the EU, where they're safe, but choose to try to come specifically to the UK for reasons other than that their lives are in danger where they are.

PrestonHammer

Some of them have connections to the UK, family most likely and they probably speak English as opposed to French.

buffybegood

PrestonHammer said:

Some of them have connections to the UK, family most likely and they probably speak English as opposed to French.

Hardly a compelling reason why we are obliged to accept everyone who wants to come here, especially the language thing.

IronHerb

buffybegood said:

PrestonHammer said:

Some of them have connections to the UK, family most likely and they probably speak English as opposed to French.

Hardly a compelling reason why we are obliged to accept everyone who wants to come here, especially the language thing.

Not sure anyone has said we should accept them.

PrestonHammer

I'm not saying we should or should not accept them, but unless you have viable routes where people can be assessed then these boat loads of people are going to keep coming.

PrestonHammer

Also if Iraq hadn't been invaded or Libya hadn't been bombed getting rid of Gaddafi, you more than likely not have this amount of people climbing into boats trying to cross.

alderz

Last year we had someone from Ukraine live with us. Her mum went to Germany because she speaks German. She came to England because she spoke English. This was a person whose home was destroyed and people she knew were killed. The idea that she should stay in France because that’s also safe, even though she knew none of the language, and making her life more difficult in a time of incredible pain and unimaginable difficulty is absolutely appalling to me. The lack of compassion some people have towards vulnerable people is honestly disgusting.

buffybegood

alderz said:

The lack of compassion some people have towards vulnerable people is honestly disgusting.

Should I pretend that's not aimed at me? Cheers.

However, I'm guessing she didn't arrive illegally, did she?

alderz

No, she was afforded a safe and legal route by the UK Government. Something they’ve failed to do for most displaced people.

And if you think it’s aimed at you then so be it. If you’re a person who lacks compassion for vulnerable people then it’s aimed at you. If you’re not it’s not. I didn’t name anyone.

buffybegood

alderz said:

No, she was afforded a safe and legal route by the UK Government. Something they’ve failed to do for most displaced people.

So she's here legally, which is all well and good. There are rules or laws that dictate what people can do, are you saying just because you disagree with a particular law it's fine to completely disregard it?

buffybegood

alderz said:

And I’d you think it’s aimed at you then so be it. If you’re a person who lacks compassion for vulnerable people then it’s aimed at you. If you’re not it’s not. I didn’t name anyone.

To quote you yesterday:

"OK"

alderz

buffybegood said:

alderz said:

No, she was afforded a safe and legal route by the UK Government. Something they’ve failed to do for most displaced people.

So she's here legally, which is all well and good. There are rules or laws that dictate what people can do, are you saying just because you disagree with a particular law it's fine to completely disregard it?

No. Which is why yesterday I said that small boat crossing should be stopped, but could be more effectively stopped by providing more safe and legal routes to the UK.

You’re obviously not reading what I’m saying because I’ve not said anywhere that people should break laws, or that small boat crosses are good.

buffybegood

alderz said:

buffybegood said:

alderz said:

No, she was afforded a safe and legal route by the UK Government. Something they’ve failed to do for most displaced people.

So she's here legally, which is all well and good. There are rules or laws that dictate what people can do, are you saying just because you disagree with a particular law it's fine to completely disregard it?

No. Which is why yesterday I said that small boat crossing should be stopped, but could be more effectively stopped by provided more safe and legal routes to the UK.

You’re obviously not reading what I’m saying because I’ve not said anywhere that people should break laws, or that small boat crosses are good.

I've read everything you've said, but the same as you don't agree with points I make, I don't agree with your position, so I think we'll have to agree to disagree, without making further insults, implied or otherwise.

alderz

Once again, I’ve not implied anything. If you’re insulted that’s on you.

thornburyiron

So are people on here saying everybody in the boats are vulnerable and fleeing persecution including the 12,000 plus male adult Albanians who came across in 2022 and are still coming.
Afghans and Ukrainians were all brought across but we can’t and shouldn’t just bring everyone over.

buffybegood

alderz said:

Once again, I’ve not implied anything. If you’re insulted that’s on you.

OK

IronHerb

alderz, you'd better stand down for stating your position. 😂

P.S. I won't be standing in to cover your stats. 💪

BubblesNeverDies

It doesn't help the cause of people genuinely fleeing persecution by whatever means that they're being joined lately by large numbers of Albanians (almost entirely young men) who are obviously purely economic migrants.
Another problem is that the numbers coming illegally is so high that any system of asylum assessment is going to be overwhelmed without a huge increase in staff. You'll then have the argument that the money is being diverted from other public services (cue NHS).
I don't think there's anybody on here arguing against genuine asylum seekers being granted it.

PrestonHammer

That's why you need other routes set up. You can then assess them. Any Albanian male coming over, in my opinion, should not be considered vulnerable and shouldn't be considered for asylum.

OutcastLondoner

buffybegood said:

alderz said:

No, she was afforded a safe and legal route by the UK Government. Something they’ve failed to do for most displaced people.

So she's here legally, which is all well and good. There are rules or laws that dictate what people can do, are you saying just because you disagree with a particular law it's fine to completely disregard it?

She’s here legally because the government and the EU both decided they would create legal routes. In Calais they created places to register for asylum that could only be used by Ukrainians.

I have met many asylum seekers and refugees who have faced far worse than many of the Ukrainians here and aren’t given a safe of legal option.