|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 14, 2023 15:45:48 GMT
No one is getting my point - that Gary Linekar OFF AIR and outside of work has every right to express personal opinions, provided that they are not offensive, abusive, insulting or derogatory, on a public domain which is available to all. If you cannot accept the "Libertarian Concept" then you must favour the kind of society which exists in Russia, North Korea or China. Mr Andrew Neal comes immediately to mind as someone with specific Conservative views, which he regularly expressed, not least in newspaper columns, at the same time he was employed by the BBC. As stated previously - the TORY BOSSES at the BBC are going to lose this fight, and I see now that its now affecting most BBC Sports programmes, with many now been cancelled because staff have walked. From Marcus Rashford to Gary Linekar - the Tories attempted to silence criticism, but they wont win .... never Ok I find his comments offensive But then i found lots of his past comments offensive I consider stealing crips from children pretty offensive too |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2023 15:48:53 GMT
He did not imply that. He was merely criticising the extremist language being used and likening that to Nazi Germany. But that argument about 'language used' is a load of horseshit. If you say that 'language used is reminiscent', then you are really communicating is that the 'views expressed' are reminiscent. Nobody is going to actually make any substantial point out of the fact that Germans in the 1930s used a particular word - technically speaking, German was typically used in Germany, not English In this case you are talking about views held by a sizeable fraction of the UK public . I am not talking about anything other than the words used by Gary Lineker. But I do actually believe that a certain segment of society - only a minority but an influential bloc of voters the Tories are pandering to - are racists in their thinking even if some of them don't like to admit it even to themselves. I also note the signs of you preparing to gear up for another protracted and pedantic thread derailment by pointing out that the Germans spoke German in the 1930s and not English, and hence a different language. It is the meanings of the words spoken that is meant by similar language here, not the actual languages themselves. No one is accusing the government of speaking German, lol. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2023 15:51:49 GMT
Imagine if a Tory MP said anything derogatory regarding Jug ears and his football career, they'd quite rightly be told to stick to the job they are being paid to do, just like we're telling Jug ears to stick to the job he's employed to do, if MPs want to become football pundits quit politics, and if football pundits want to become politicians quit being a football commentator, quite simple reallly. Like when Penny Mordaunt accused Labour of “borrowing from the Gary Lineker playbook” by being the “party of goal hangers” taking easy shots against the Government. Of course Labour - and anyone else who is not a Tory - is going to take easy shots against the government. That's politics. But Labour and others would not find it so easy to score goals against them if they weren't presented with an open goal quite so often. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 14, 2023 15:53:54 GMT
The BBC are not stopping him, he can twitter all day about his vacuous opinions and no one is saying that he can't, it is after all a free country. All the BBC are saying is that if he chooses to make an idiot of himself with offensive and juvenile twitters they will choose not to employ him. Everyone has a right to free speech, but no one has a right to a job. There isn't a problem, he has chosen to breach his contract and can't be surprised at the outcome. And it’s not even an issue of employment rights Lineker isnt an employee. He’s a gig economy opportunist Even more likely to be not required back for being controversial. At the end of the day he’s being paid out of the licence fee i’m forced to pay whether i watch the bastard or not. If the BBC were a subscription service they could pay him what the fuck they liked and he could say what the fuck he likes as i wouldnt be paying. That’s a BIG factor for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 14, 2023 17:22:03 GMT
Nor should they be labelled as criminals or invaders for attempting to claim asylum. Despite your political aims, the purpose of the asylum system is not to get people into the uk against the wishes of the UK public. The purpose is to allow people to flee from danger. Clearly, people who moving from safe countries to the uk without our permission are not fleeing danger, are forcing themselves on us and are breaking the law. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 14, 2023 17:24:54 GMT
Many are drowned or come close to drowning in their attempt to acquire asylum which means they are vulnerable or have become vulnerable even if the blame for it at that stage rests with themselves. They are apparently by law, still allowed to claim asylum. They don't have asylum if the are stuck in the English channel in British waters. No amount of 'logical' debate will alter that existing problem, if or when it does, it will no longer be a problem. They had the jeans and physical strength to be in that position . Deliberately putting yourself in danger while trying to illegally enter the UK should not be a mitigating factor. What next? Attempting suicide = instant asylum? Nope, commonsense will do. They didn't deliberately put themselves in danger, they probably paid to be safely transported, or that is what they were told when they handed over their money. AFAIA at present, asylum seekers are not illegal migrants. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 14, 2023 17:26:26 GMT
Nor should they be labelled as criminals or invaders for attempting to claim asylum. Despite your political aims, the purpose of the asylum system is not to get people into the uk against the wishes of the UK public. The purpose is to allow people to flee from danger. Clearly, people who moving from safe countries to the uk without our permission are not fleeing danger, are forcing themselves on us and are breaking the law. Which law are they breaking? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 14, 2023 17:32:17 GMT
Despite your political aims, the purpose of the asylum system is not to get people into the uk against the wishes of the UK public. The purpose is to allow people to flee from danger. Clearly, people who moving from safe countries to the uk without our permission are not fleeing danger, are forcing themselves on us and are breaking the law. Which law are they breaking? Section 24 of the 1971 Immigration Act. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 14, 2023 17:37:26 GMT
They had the jeans and physical strength to be in that position . Deliberately putting yourself in danger while trying to illegally enter the UK should not be a mitigating factor. What next? Attempting suicide = instant asylum? Nope, commonsense will do. They didn't deliberately put themselves in danger, they probably paid to be safely transported, or that is what they were told when they handed over their money. AFAIA at present, asylum seekers are not illegal migrants. They deliberately undertook and paid to be put into a small boat on the English Channel. They are not stupid . Don’t try to kid us that they did not have a clue about the process. They are not asylum seekers .If their purpose was to seek asylum then they would of stopped in the first country where they were safe. They are economic migrants who are funding criminal gangs in order to illegally enter a country that they think will offer them an easier life than the first , second or third country that they could seek asylum from. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 14, 2023 19:04:29 GMT
Which law are they breaking? Section 24 of the 1971 Immigration Act. Tons of them getting here and as soon as they get here, but the amusing part is, these have zero respect for British people and I get to listen to people telling me how we should do even more for them, while politicians who agree with them have no respect for their own voters, but then we knew that. |
|
