|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 14, 2023 12:07:11 GMT
If it was illegal then it is not a policy that can be applied. No harm in anyone speaking out against anything they disagree with the main problem is that those who speak out against any given orthodoxy tend to be quietly cancelled and those who support the orthodoxy see the work flowing in. It is a bit like Bellamy and Attenborough, only one supported the global warming narrative and only one progressed to make many more programmes. Strange it was the unqualified one who progressed. What should happen is we are all allowed to speak our mind, within the confines of law obscure as they are, outside the workplace.so....I don't think anybody is saying you "can't speak your mind" the problem is the forum one uses....in particular this twitface open sewer that is social media. Social media entraps certain types of people into engaging with issues they are not equipped mentally to deal with. In this instance Lineker was (in my view) simply performing. Lineker was not engaging with genuine truth or engaging with genuine politics. Social media entraps people onto a merry-go-round where concepts don't have genuine depth because certain people don't understand the terms they are using or (and even worse) they do and are deliberately misusing them. I don't disagree with rational argument in good faith within a forum whereby argument can be challenged, however, I think in this instance Lineker was merely performing a role and trying and failing to appreciate the complexity of what he was engaging in. I suppose this is the issue I have with social media (specially in light of it being used as a tool of war in the influence and dis-information spectrum) are people engaging in and trying to express in a very truncated fashion very complicated views about very complicated issues whilst not realising that social media is not a good medium for that. I would think that if you engage on social media such as this, with its limitations, then you should be well aware of those limitations and how they restrict the point you are making. Dianne Abbott said she found it difficult but I wonder. So Lineker was on this platform and did say what he said and if that is misconstrued then so be it. But it was not, he has not denied that he said what he said and that it came across clearly. The point I am making is irrespective of the limitations of any platform people should be free to say things and engage with others as a legal pastime without comeback outside of their work. Largely I do not care what Lineker says away from his BBC platform and that should apply across the board. As we see with the left in general though this is not a two way street. The left pursue those they disagree with with a degree of venom and vindictiveness that tells a tale. We have seen this as a prime example with Ballet dancer Simone Clarke who was exposed as a member of the BNP. There is no evidence she used her Ballet platform to further her views and was a member of a legal political party. The left were unable to live with this and hounded her from her profession by disrupting public performances. It is this hypocrisy that is writ large across the face of the broad left in this country. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Mar 14, 2023 12:52:38 GMT
One big problem with twitter in particular is the character limit which severely limits the ability of anyone of knowledge to be able to put out a well argued opinion. Everything is reduced to virtual soundbites. It is extremely difficult to debate sensibly there under these constraints. Another problem with it is that you tend to be followed by countless multitudes who agree with you, whilst many of those who disagree with you simply block you. This effectively turns twatter into the ultimate echo chamber where most people you engage with agree with you and back you up, whilst the ones that don't have mostly blocked you so you cannot engage with them. I do have a twitter account but hardly ever use it anymore for these reasons. Incidentally, I have been blocked there by people as diverse as Johnny Mercer my local Tory MP, Jonny Morris a former local Labour councillor, and George Galloway. So even politicians from across the political spectrum seem unable to handle anyone disagreeing with them there. All this out-pouring of concern for these criminals who are invading our shores and evading our laws by the usual lefty idiots would have some human merit if the fact that their sympathy were genuine and NOT FAUX. Thank you for providing an example of the sort of language Lineker was complaining of. Also showing how Cruella's attempts to criminalise all asylum seekers is working as planned as a dog whistle to whip up hatred. Good to have you onside. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 14, 2023 12:57:18 GMT
All this out-pouring of concern for these criminals who are invading our shores and evading our laws by the usual lefty idiots would have some human merit if the fact that their sympathy were genuine and NOT FAUX. Thank you for providing an example of the sort of language Lineker was complaining of. Also showing how Cruella's attempts to criminalise all asylum seekers is working as planned as a dog whistle to whip up hatred. Good to have you onside. These are just facts. They are criminals for crossing borders with no leave to do so. The fact is that the EU know they are criminals but the French business model is working a treat. More tourists passing through. |
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on Mar 14, 2023 13:31:16 GMT
so....I don't think anybody is saying you "can't speak your mind" the problem is the forum one uses....in particular this twitface open sewer that is social media. Social media entraps certain types of people into engaging with issues they are not equipped mentally to deal with. In this instance Lineker was (in my view) simply performing. Lineker was not engaging with genuine truth or engaging with genuine politics. Social media entraps people onto a merry-go-round where concepts don't have genuine depth because certain people don't understand the terms they are using or (and even worse) they do and are deliberately misusing them. I don't disagree with rational argument in good faith within a forum whereby argument can be challenged, however, I think in this instance Lineker was merely performing a role and trying and failing to appreciate the complexity of what he was engaging in. I suppose this is the issue I have with social media (specially in light of it being used as a tool of war in the influence and dis-information spectrum) are people engaging in and trying to express in a very truncated fashion very complicated views about very complicated issues whilst not realising that social media is not a good medium for that. I would think that if you engage on social media such as this, with its limitations, then you should be well aware of those limitations and how they restrict the point you are making. Dianne Abbott said she found it difficult but I wonder. So Lineker was on this platform and did say what he said and if that is misconstrued then so be it. But it was not, he has not denied that he said what he said and that it came across clearly. The point I am making is irrespective of the limitations of any platform people should be free to say things and engage with others as a legal pastime without comeback outside of their work. Largely I do not care what Lineker says away from his BBC platform and that should apply across the board. As we see with the left in general though this is not a two way street. The left pursue those they disagree with with a degree of venom and vindictiveness that tells a tale. We have seen this as a prime example with Ballet dancer Simone Clarke who was exposed as a member of the BNP. There is no evidence she used her Ballet platform to further her views and was a member of a legal political party. The left were unable to live with this and hounded her from her profession by disrupting public performances. It is this hypocrisy that is writ large across the face of the broad left in this country. If I understand your point correctly (and apologies if I’m wrong) I think my rhetorical question to you would be, did he think that his comment was inconsequential and would not have repercussions? Surely when engaging in a narrative such as this one’s points need to be based within the realms of facts and in this instance without adversarial subliminal messaging such as was used here - I would qualify that by saying that Lineker is in a position of influence, he is well aware of his popularity and therefore (surely) needs to engage with his audience in a nuanced fashion. I realise that social media can be used in a positive way, however, it seems that many users of it are generally there to derive some form of positive affirmation for their views or lifestyle or the narratives they want to pursue. Thus I would argue that that comes with a certain degree of responsibility.
The imagery that was being expressed (in my opinion) was difficult to misconstrue. His narrative was basically false – I mean living in Kent I don’t see uniformed activists going into pubs and shops and banks and public meetings attempting to take control of a democracy by eliminating political opposition and transforming the UK into a dictatorship? Whilst he may not agree with the current policy surrounding this whole issue of immigration and the ways and means of dealing with immigration such banal use of language and imagery will not help that debate. Was he trying to pander to a mob mentality? Who knows, but to me we are dealing with a person who should be aware of the evil of banalities within the narratives one is pursuing. That’s my point. So where you say “Largely I do not care what Lineker says away from his BBC platform and that should apply across the board.” I would suggest that him being and him understanding that he is a person of influence and is in a position to influence (he has what…7 million followers on twitface) he has to be held to a higher standard of public scrutiny or he is just adding to the banalities of the open sewer. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Mar 14, 2023 13:43:37 GMT
Thank you for providing an example of the sort of language Lineker was complaining of. Also showing how Cruella's attempts to criminalise all asylum seekers is working as planned as a dog whistle to whip up hatred. Good to have you onside. These are just facts. They are criminals for crossing borders with no leave to do so. The fact is that the EU know they are criminals but the French business model is working a treat. More tourists passing through. Not according to international law. Asylum seekers are perfectly entitled to cross borders in order to claim asylum. Cruella's attempt to criminalise asylum seekers will fail because it breaks international law. If anyone is a criminal it is her. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 14, 2023 13:48:35 GMT
I would think that if you engage on social media such as this, with its limitations, then you should be well aware of those limitations and how they restrict the point you are making. Dianne Abbott said she found it difficult but I wonder. So Lineker was on this platform and did say what he said and if that is misconstrued then so be it. But it was not, he has not denied that he said what he said and that it came across clearly. The point I am making is irrespective of the limitations of any platform people should be free to say things and engage with others as a legal pastime without comeback outside of their work. Largely I do not care what Lineker says away from his BBC platform and that should apply across the board. As we see with the left in general though this is not a two way street. The left pursue those they disagree with with a degree of venom and vindictiveness that tells a tale. We have seen this as a prime example with Ballet dancer Simone Clarke who was exposed as a member of the BNP. There is no evidence she used her Ballet platform to further her views and was a member of a legal political party. The left were unable to live with this and hounded her from her profession by disrupting public performances. It is this hypocrisy that is writ large across the face of the broad left in this country. If I understand your point correctly (and apologies if I’m wrong) I think my rhetorical question to you would be, did he think that his comment was inconsequential and would not have repercussions? Surely when engaging in a narrative such as this one’s points need to be based within the realms of facts and in this instance without adversarial subliminal messaging such as was used here - I would qualify that by saying that Lineker is in a position of influence, he is well aware of his popularity and therefore (surely) needs to engage with his audience in a nuanced fashion. I realise that social media can be used in a positive way, however, it seems that many users of it are generally there to derive some form of positive affirmation for their views or lifestyle or the narratives they want to pursue. Thus I would argue that that comes with a certain degree of responsibility.
The imagery that was being expressed (in my opinion) was difficult to misconstrue. His narrative was basically false – I mean living in Kent I don’t see uniformed activists going into pubs and shops and banks and public meetings attempting to take control of a democracy by eliminating political opposition and transforming the UK into a dictatorship? Whilst he may not agree with the current policy surrounding this whole issue of immigration and the ways and means of dealing with immigration such banal use of language and imagery will not help that debate. Was he trying to pander to a mob mentality? Who knows, but to me we are dealing with a person who should be aware of the evil of banalities within the narratives one is pursuing. That’s my point. So where you say “Largely I do not care what Lineker says away from his BBC platform and that should apply across the board.” I would suggest that him being and him understanding that he is a person of influence and is in a position to influence (he has what…7 million followers on twitface) he has to be held to a higher standard of public scrutiny or he is just adding to the banalities of the open sewer. He should only be subject to the laws as they currently exist, that is all that any citizen should expect. He may be a 'role model' and followed by many but that entails no responsibility upon him other than to obey the law. If you cast around for what other responsibility he has then that raises many subjective issues as to how a 'role model' should behave. He has aired his opinion and any degree of following should be aware that is all that it is. They may or may not agree but that is their choice. He did not use a BBC platform to air that opinion so as far as I can see that is fine. That does not mean I agree with his opinion but he has the right to express that outside his employment as we should all be allowed to do. My issue is largely with the left in general who demand this right for 'theirs' and spend as much time, money and the enthusiasm and naivety of the young to further their own agenda by shutting down those they disagree with irrespective of the law. Which is why I used the example of Simone Clark who behaved no differently to Lineker in that she pursued her own political interests outside of her employment yet the left could not accept her employment as a role model in any way. It is the hypocrisy that surrounds the issue that is the problem |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 14, 2023 13:51:17 GMT
These are just facts. They are criminals for crossing borders with no leave to do so. The fact is that the EU know they are criminals but the French business model is working a treat. More tourists passing through. Not according to international law. Asylum seekers are perfectly entitled to cross borders in order to claim asylum. Cruella's attempt to criminalise asylum seekers will fail because it breaks international law. If anyone is a criminal it is her. Not quite, They are not entitled to do that, they may have done that in order to make a claim but there is no entitlement as they have a stated responsibility to follow the laws in whichever country they find themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 14, 2023 14:11:19 GMT
Yesterday the new Bill to deal with Illegal Migration put forward by the Government passed its first test in the Commons, 312 votes in favour of it 250 voted against it
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 14, 2023 14:21:39 GMT
All this out-pouring of concern for these criminals who are invading our shores and evading our laws by the usual lefty idiots would have some human merit if the fact that their sympathy were genuine and NOT FAUX. Thank you for providing an example of the sort of language Lineker was complaining of. Also showing how Cruella's attempts to criminalise all asylum seekers is working as planned as a dog whistle to whip up hatred. Good to have you onside. So what exactly would you call those criminals who are illecally invading our shores? Like I have staed this nothing to do with lefty commpasion for their fellow man.. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Mar 14, 2023 14:55:59 GMT
Thank you for providing an example of the sort of language Lineker was complaining of. Also showing how Cruella's attempts to criminalise all asylum seekers is working as planned as a dog whistle to whip up hatred. Good to have you onside. So what exactly would you call those criminals who are illecally invading our shores? Like I have staed this nothing to do with lefty commpasion for their fellow man.. Until proven otherwise they are asylum seekers. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 14, 2023 14:58:51 GMT
So what exactly would you call those criminals who are illecally invading our shores? Like I have staed this nothing to do with lefty commpasion for their fellow man.. Until proven otherwise they are asylum seekers. The clue is in the title 'illegal' migrants, anything illegal is breaking the law, making them 'criminals'.
If something is illegal, the law says that it is not allowed.
They are criminals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 14, 2023 15:16:45 GMT
So what exactly would you call those criminals who are illecally invading our shores? Like I have staed this nothing to do with lefty commpasion for their fellow man.. Until proven otherwise they are asylum seekers. The fact that they have are in a perfectly safe country ( France) and are attempting to cross into the UK refutes the claim that they are asylum seekers . You can’t claim that you are starving if you walk past an offer of a cheese sandwich because you like hamburgers more . Any migrants coming here from France are economic migrants nit asylum seekers . |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Mar 14, 2023 15:23:57 GMT
I can't see from any posts I've read here what makes a newly arrived or unprocessed asylum seeker, illegal. Surely they are only illegal if they stay without applying for asylum upon arrival, or stay on if their application is turned down. Arriving without papers and/or travelling across one or several safe countries does not invalidate their rights to claim. The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refu-
gees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes
that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules.
It should be noted that Member States are not required to apply the concept of first
country of asylum, as Article 26 is a permissive provision.
Destination countries may have interests in reducing irregular movements. As such, the
concept of first country of asylum may be seen as a potential deterrent to irregular
movements by refugees.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 14, 2023 15:26:57 GMT
Until proven otherwise they are asylum seekers. The fact that they have are in a perfectly safe country ( France) and are attempting to cross into the UK refutes the claim that they are asylum seekers . You can’t claim that you are starving if you walk past an offer of a cheese sandwich because you like hamburgers more . Any migrants coming here from France are economic migrants nit asylum seekers . The BBC call it an illegal bill routinely. I don't agree with them, but that's how it is at the corporation. The thing is the government have access to top lawyers to suss this bill out. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 14, 2023 15:50:43 GMT
I can't see from any posts I've read here what makes a newly arrived or unprocessed asylum seeker, illegal. Surely they are only illegal if they stay without applying for asylum upon arrival, or stay on if their application is turned down. Arriving without papers and/or travelling across one or several safe countries does not invalidate their rights to claim. The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refu-
gees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes
that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules.
It should be noted that Member States are not required to apply the concept of first
country of asylum, as Article 26 is a permissive provision.
Destination countries may have interests in reducing irregular movements. As such, the
concept of first country of asylum may be seen as a potential deterrent to irregular
movements by refugees.
Article 2 Every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which require in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order |
|
