Yes - but I would not start a debate on immigration midway through with comments entirely representing one side of any argument. For me a debate should be based on facts and maybe some common sense ground rules rather than criticism of one side's policies. Interested?
The Nazis didn't have exclusive dominion on dehumanising rhetoric in 1930s Germany, no. I agree that they were probably who Lineker was referring to in his tweet, though. Claiming that demonstrates ignorance is just blatantly wrong. At least one Holocaust survivor has agreed with him and they can't be accused of that, can they? Comparing immigrants crossing the channel in small boats to D-Day is just ludicrous. Are they an organised army bringing across arms, ammunition, armour and tanks? Are they attempting to free the local population from fascist invaders? Are they conducting bombing runs in planes across the continent in preparation? It would be like comparing someone to Hitler or Stalin because they have a moustache.
Very disingenuous of him indeed. "Contrast Ken Livingstone who got into trouble for claiming Hitler supported Zionism" The Nazis wanted to expel all Jews out of Germany. AFAIK, no high-ranking Nazis are on record as stating that if it meant helping the Jews build their own homeland overseas to achieve it , so be it (in which case Red Ken was a gobsh*te at best and a liar at worst) .
I contend that Lineker is nothing but an utter gobsh*te the social discourse in 1930s Germany regarding immigrants. "At least one Holocaust survivor has agreed with him and they can't be accused of that, can they?" And it seems that some have declared he is wrong to make such associations. I assume they too "cannot be accused of that" . "Comparing immigrants crossing the channel in small boats to D-Day is just ludicrous." How do you define an "invasion" ?? By total number ?? By rate ?? By its goals ?? In human military terms, or biological ( "invasive species" etc) ??
You're free to call him a gobshite, but claiming that his comment demonstrated ignorance is unwarranted. If Holocaust survivors are making the same comparison, then it's not definitely based on a lack of knowledge. The Nazis did make similar comparisons. It really is that simple. Immigration, legal or not, isn't comparable with one of the largest military invasions of all time. Even your own numbers, which I don't know the accuracy of, compare one day to an entire year. We have 3m tourists a year. Is tourism an invasion?
Edit.... Actually, any debate generally starts from a premise. In this case, I'm suggesting that there is indeed 'evidence' to support the points I raised, which together suggest that the UK Government is pursuing Immigration policies that are either potentially illegal or based on created or selectively engineered data to support those policies.
I am always open to education on all things. So everyone feel free to educate me on what the 1930s German (Nazi or other) opinion was on immigrants coming to Germany (specifically on the numbers and whys) . We know from stuff such as "Mein kampf" , the NSDAP manifesto etc, what the Nazi ideas were on the lives of Jews / "non-Germans" who resided in or wanted to come to Germany. "Immigration, legal or not, isn't comparable with one of the largest military invasions of all time. Even your own numbers, which I don't know the accuracy of, compare one day to an entire year." So if all the 'dinghy drivers' appeared in one day of the year and no other, than that is completely different (I guess similar could be said if "Operation overlord" was spread over each day of 1944 and not just June 6) ?? "We have 3m tourists a year. Is tourism an invasion" What are the goals of a tourist ?? To visit a nation other than their own, for non-commercial reasons, with minimal intrusion, and then to return home after a short period of time, to their lives in their resident nation ??
I was thinking of trying to establish if we have any common ground. Then we can see at what point opinions are likely to start to diverge. Ok Do we believe in a basic rule of law? That a country has to have laws that define who its citizens are and what they can or cannot do and when these laws are broken there are consequences? If we do, do we also believe that every country has a right to define who can and cannot be citizens? as I say I am just trying to find some common ground. If we cannot establish that there is little point in debating the finer details. Agreed?
Interesting developments... Sky News are challenging the BBC announcement that Lineker was 'asked to stand down'. Rather that he has been suspended for failing to apologise for the Tweet. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the Twitter comment, it can never be the BBC's position to cancel anyone - let alone a freelancer - for failing to apologise for his personal opinion about something that has nothing to do with the Corporation! This, if true, is appalling and the stench of political interference is nauseating. You would hope that Linekers MOTD colleagues show some solidarity and pull out if the show in protest. I appreciate that some of them are probably more reliant on that income, but still....
SSN saying he hasn’t agreed to step back from presenting MOTD but has been taken off by the BBC as he won’t agree to their demands on his use of social media. Has he said anything controversial? The government justifies its rhetoric and policies. It intends to display a hardline approach on immigration as it’s central to their pitch to win certain votes. The language is intentionally inflammatory. They want to create this narrative that immigrants are criminals, immigration is to be discouraged and they are going to be tough on it. They haven’t tried to be subtle about that. Braverman has even gone as far as saying that their new bill may be unlawful, but they’re still going ahead with it. They don’t care about any backlash from dissenters. Lineker’s problem is not what he’s said but that he’s dared to express an opinion which might result in the government getting on the BBC’s back because an “employee” is not seen to be “impartial.”. If he’d said something Clarkson-esque about the issue, nobody would bat an eyelid (as indeed the BBC haven’t done in the past when he said things as Top Gear presenter).
Fair point and I do agree. However, whilst it is clearly evident that any country has its own rules and Laws, there are also international statutes that will also apply if they wish to belong to that larger community (be that, EU, UN etc) and if there is conflict between them then the individual country needs to accept the implications of their actions in that regard. For example, if for instance, the UK post Brexit decides to change food standards that are not compatible with the EU or US, then the impact on Trade has to be accepted. Equally, as in the case in point, Immigration, if the UK follows a unilateral path which is contrary to international Law, then the likelihood is that there will inevitably be repercussions. To some degree this is already evidenced in the fact that as a result of Brexit and the failure to date to negotiate any new agreement, the UK is now unable to 'return' refugees under the first country rule. Agreed?
Alan Sugar is a free-lancer I imagine, but he was not asked to step back or resign for his clearly political (and repeated) abusive Tweets at Mick Lynch. It is the clear lack of impartiality on the part of their reaction that makes them a laughing stock - a Government puppet.
