|
|
Post by thescotsman on Mar 14, 2023 16:02:58 GMT
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 In terms of your view on the BBC I don't have an issue on that - to me they seem to think the country is overrun by racist bigoted climate denying northerners who are unaware of certain “realities” (that only they seem to understand) and that they think they will improve the world; they’re embroiled in a quasi-holy mission on climate on gender on equality all based on their interpretations of the advocates of post-modernist speak. Which makes it all the more important for people with platforms to speak in a clear FACTUAL manner and NOT to make a mockery of and further embed those narratives by making stupid and false and hamfisted claims. That’s my point. And Lineker making such statements now lumps him into that category.
I mean just as an extreme example of this…and I’m fully aware of how this will play in terms of this discussion….but….we have a war in Europe at the moment in which hundreds of thousands of people are dying, all based on a false narrative espoused by a small minority and being traded on social media by a vast army of useful idiots in order to further the agenda of one mans warped view of the world. Obviously Lineker’s comments are insignificant compared to that situation, nonetheless, both are based on lies. In this day and age when truth is a tradable commodity people have to be careful of what they say on public platforms. Whether that is said in the work place or out of it. So no I don’t agree with your though that he should be allowed to say what he did – especially the lying to the public and then diving behind the veil of “free speech”....that just makes him a petty consumer of it rather than a proponent for it. Freedom of speech is obtained by speaking TRUTH to power not speaking lies to the public for the sake of some pathetic attempt at virtue signalling. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 14, 2023 16:03:47 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.
Except many of them don't claim asylum, they fade into the black economy, Indian restaurants are often raided to find those who often then scream asylum, same with food processors and farming gangs. Welcome to the world that I know but of which a minority of others are aware. Next chapter will be on ID fraud, also rife in ther immigrant world. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 14, 2023 16:05:58 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 Put it this way, if we all decide to take illegal routes to different countries TUI, Jet2, easy jet, would all be out of business, what do you think would happen if families decided to jump in a dinghy from the UK and set sail for France.
They would be sent back from whence they came, because ... now here's the key word they would be entering France ... here it comes ILLEGALLY.
Macron and the French border force would laugh their heads off if we told them we wanted to claim Asylum because they feared for their life and safety in the UK, because that is the excuse the illegal migrants are using coming from France. hahahahaha
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 14, 2023 16:28:07 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. They are criminals and no amount of turd polishing can change the fact. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 14, 2023 17:08:09 GMT
Until proven otherwise they are asylum seekers. They are criminals and no amount of turd polishing can change the fact. You seem to have turd polishing on your mind, not surprising, as going on your posts it does appear to be your favourite pastime. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 14, 2023 17:37:36 GMT
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 In terms of your view on the BBC I don't have an issue on that - to me they seem to think the country is overrun by racist bigoted climate denying northerners who are unaware of certain “realities” (that only they seem to understand) and that they think they will improve the world; they’re embroiled in a quasi-holy mission on climate on gender on equality all based on their interpretations of the advocates of post-modernist speak. Which makes it all the more important for people with platforms to speak in a clear FACTUAL manner and NOT to make a mockery of and further embed those narratives by making stupid and false and hamfisted claims. That’s my point. And Lineker making such statements now lumps him into that category.
I mean just as an extreme example of this…and I’m fully aware of how this will play in terms of this discussion….but….we have a war in Europe at the moment in which hundreds of thousands of people are dying, all based on a false narrative espoused by a small minority and being traded on social media by a vast army of useful idiots in order to further the agenda of one mans warped view of the world. Obviously Lineker’s comments are insignificant compared to that situation, nonetheless, both are based on lies. In this day and age when truth is a tradable commodity people have to be careful of what they say on public platforms. Whether that is said in the work place or out of it. So no I don’t agree with your though that he should be allowed to say what he did – especially the lying to the public and then diving behind the veil of “free speech”....that just makes him a petty consumer of it rather than a proponent for it. Freedom of speech is obtained by speaking TRUTH to power not speaking lies to the public for the sake of some pathetic attempt at virtue signalling. The obvious problem with that is that in order for truth to be paramount someone somewhere has to decide what is the truth. I would be more than happy to fill that role but despite having in my view a perfect record of reflecting the truth I am not infallible. Which also means that someone has to allow or disallow comments and then we enter really shaky ground. It is hard enough keeping the right side of what is legal. The thing is Lineker may well believe he is speaking the truth. It is only authoritarian regimes that try to restrict freedom of speech from opinion on government policy which is why we are already well into dodgy times. We do not need more. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 14, 2023 17:39:56 GMT
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 Put it this way, if we all decide to take illegal routes to different countries TUI, Jet2, easy jet, would all be out of business, what do you think would happen if families decided to jump in a dinghy from the UK and set sail for France.
They would be sent back from whence they came, because ... now here's the key word they would be entering France ... here it comes ILLEGALLY.
Macron and the French border force would laugh their heads off if we told them we wanted to claim Asylum because they feared for their life and safety in the UK, because that is the excuse the illegal migrants are using coming from France. hahahahaha
You do not need to worry as there are thousands of illegals wandering around France and no one is asking them any questions as regards their status at all. They will never find you if you went to stay in France. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 14, 2023 17:45:20 GMT
Put it this way, if we all decide to take illegal routes to different countries TUI, Jet2, easy jet, would all be out of business, what do you think would happen if families decided to jump in a dinghy from the UK and set sail for France.
They would be sent back from whence they came, because ... now here's the key word they would be entering France ... here it comes ILLEGALLY.
Macron and the French border force would laugh their heads off if we told them we wanted to claim Asylum because they feared for their life and safety in the UK, because that is the excuse the illegal migrants are using coming from France. hahahahaha
You do not need to worry as there are thousands of illegals wandering around France and no one is asking them any questions as regards their status at all. They will never find you if you went to stay in France. Why does Macron make it so difficult for the Brits to legally enter France? |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Mar 14, 2023 18:01:57 GMT
You do not need to worry as there are thousands of illegals wandering around France and no one is asking them any questions as regards their status at all. They will never find you if you went to stay in France. Why does Macron make it so difficult for the Brits to legally enter France? We like the place too much to leave.
Wonderful place France, too good to leave to the French
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 14, 2023 19:21:29 GMT
You do not need to worry as there are thousands of illegals wandering around France and no one is asking them any questions as regards their status at all. They will never find you if you went to stay in France. Why does Macron make it so difficult for the Brits to legally enter France? Micron is pissed because the UK and the USA along with Australia signed their own deal today to supply sumarines rather than the frog crap he was attempting to sell... |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 14, 2023 19:29:02 GMT
Why does Macron make it so difficult for the Brits to legally enter France? Micron is pissed because the UK and the USA along with Australia signed their own deal today to supply sumarines rather than the frog crap he was attempting to sell... yes, that and Brexit he's a very bitter little man. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 14, 2023 19:30:54 GMT
Micron is pissed because the UK and the USA along with Australia signed their own deal today to supply sumarines rather than the frog crap he was attempting to sell... yes, that and Brexit he's a very bitter little man. Granny won't get her oats tonight LOL... |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 14, 2023 19:31:54 GMT
yes, that and Brexit he's a very bitter little man. Granny won't get her oats tonight LOL... LOL |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Mar 14, 2023 19:36:07 GMT
I reckon Linekergate will be a factor at the next election.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 14, 2023 19:57:38 GMT
Until proven otherwise they are asylum seekers. They are criminals and no amount of turd polishing can change the fact. In fairness one has to show you are better than them in these matters, give them a coat a new pair of boots drop them back on the French beaches and tell them to enjoy the walk. I know I am a very fair chap, just the way it is. |
|
