Match of the Day

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
HHH said:
But is it garbage. Now of course there is an agenda that wants it to sound garbage and I think lineker could have been a bit more cute in his delivery. But lets break it down a bit.

Post WW1 Germany was in the **** big time. A breading ground for extremists. Instead of addressing the real issues and facing the real causes, it's so much easier to blame it all on an easy scapegoat. Enter a centuries old foe. The Jew.

They're responsible for all your problems. It's an international conspiracy. They're all working together for themselves at your cost. And now we've got your attention let's throw in the disabled. They're a drain in society. Then they come for the next group, then the next group.

Fast forward to today. The government are presiding over a **** show. They don't have the answers. They need to employ deflection tactics to take people's minds of the real issues. Easy, let's appeal to people's most base emotions.

Enter conversation, a few thousand immigrants coming across here on boats. They're a drain on society. We've got no room for them. Our services are over stretched. You can't get a house because they go to the front of the queue. It's all their fault. An easy scapegoat, appealing to people's most base emotions.

Now of course there are issues there to be addressed but no way is it the cause of all our problems. It's an absolutely shameful tactic but I expect nothing less from that shower of ****.

So my reading of the comments is this. You're always on shaky ground when you play the nazi Germany card. But he wasn't talking about things like the Holocaust or world wars like those with an agenda imply, to make it sound like
a rediculous thing to say. It's the tactic of finding a group that can't defend itself and using it as the scapegoat. Feeding into those base emotions that are simmering under the surface and deflecting from the real problems.

And here we are. Polarising society. Divide and conquer. However you want to phrase it. It's distracting us from the real issues.
Click to expand...
So people who do one or more of the following: illegally entering the country, sexually abusing children, killing people and blowing up children isnt important?
 
Howdentiger2 said:
He'd be presenting tonight if he'd posted he disagreed and didn't support the policy... The fact he made a absolutely ridiculous comparison to something that this said policy is nothing like is the reason he's not presenting

He's every right to not agree and not support, but He's an absolute idiot for saying what he said and has rightly been removed.
Click to expand...

This one Syd....
 
petersaxton said:
what are his 'employment conditions'?
he isnt even an employee
he has a freelance contract
I doubt you are privy to it
Click to expand...

And neither are you so stop claiming to be.

Given the precedent with other BBC presenters is much stronger than any guesstimation of his contract I'm going to go with the precedent.
 
Stockholm Tiger said:
That fine we don't have to agree. Despite what people seem to think on here sometimes. They would though because they have to be impartial.

It is hypothetical but it was you who raised the question.
Click to expand...

No I asked if he'd supported the current government, not spoken out against a hypothetical Labour government.

You know, the current government that other BBC presenters have spoken out in support of with no recrimination. That's a bit less hypothetical.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
His contract with the BBC? The organisation you asked "What's it got to do with the BBC"? :)
Click to expand...
You obviously didnt understand what we were talking about
We were discussing whether he was talking nonsense or not
The BBC doesnt care whether he talks sense or nonsense but they do care if he's being impartial or not
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muffinthegoat
petersaxton said:
You obviously didnt understand what we were talking about
We were discussing whether he was talking nonsense or not
The BBC doesnt care whether he talks sense or nonsense but they do care if he's being impartial or not
Click to expand...

Oh do they? That's interesting to hear. I'm glad you're across what they care about. Could you let me know what they thought of Sugar's tweets about Corbyn which included a cartoon of him in Hitler's car?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dennisboothstash, TigerMarv and HHH
SydneyTiger14 said:
No I asked if he'd supported the current government, not spoken out against a hypothetical Labour government.

You know, the current government that other BBC presenters have spoken out in support of with no recrimination. That's a bit less hypothetical.
Click to expand...

Supporting a party, or government, is different to comparing one you don't support to Nazi's is it not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gone For A Walk
petersaxton said:
So people who do one or more of the following: illegally entering the country, sexually abusing children, killing people and blowing up children isnt important?
Click to expand...

You're mistakingly thinking that's the reason this has suddenly become issue number one for this lot.

If they care about all that then there are bigger fish to fry that some boat people.

They're trying to win votes. They haven't got the answers. This is much easier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dennisboothstash and SydneyTiger14
SydneyTiger14 said:
And neither are you so stop claiming to be.

Given the precedent with other BBC presenters is much stronger than any guesstimation of his contract I'm going to go with the precedent.
Click to expand...
Why did the BBC say that Lineker had breached their impartiality guidelines?
It would appear that they are mentioned in his contract

You said: "And neither are you so stop claiming to be."
When did I claim to be privy to what is in his contract?
In fact I made it clear that I didnt know what is in his contract.

I said: "I dont know what is in his contract" see my comment #96
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back