Another absolutely disgusting attempt to twist the narrative: Lineker didn't "deploy the N word", under any ludicrous definition. Nobody thinks that that would mean Nazis and he didn't say that anyway. Matt Frei needs to apologise, at the very least.
Not sure if it’s been mentioned (sorry if it has), but Brexit has shot the government in both feet so far as their plans to deport immigrants back to the country they have travelled from. When part of the EU, the UK could deport but no agreement was negotiated with the EU to continue to do so when we left. So they now have the problem, for all their bluster, that when they detain the migrants they are determined to stop (but will still come), they have no plan to do anything with them, apart from the unworkable Rwanda option.
The nature of the association is everything. Which is why I mentioned Sky Sports UK. So here is the scenario : Lineker is the presenter of their equivalent of MOTD. His salary (sorry - fee for "services provided" ) is exactly the same. His twattery is exactly the same. The audience are outraged. Some respond in the following ways : 1. cancel their subscriptions 2. do not watch the programme when he is on it. If the total cost of #1 exceeds those of using Lineker, they are now operating at a nett loss. If #2 drops sufficiently that the amount of ad revenue drops, they are now operating at a nett loss. Sky Sports UK are not in control of Linekers' opinions, yet they are suffering a nett loss for those opinions. So what are they to do as a commercial entity ?? Insist on contractual T+Cs to allow immediate termination in such events ?? Something else ?? If you decide that some kind of punitive action is valid, then if Sky Sports UK can do it then I contend that the BBC can also do it. If you decide that no punitive action is valid, then I will apply that across the board to all people in all professions.
Turns out that they don't seem to have an issue with freelance hosts breaking impartiality guidelines if they break them the right way Emphasis on "right"
Here is a cautionary tale (cannot verify the truth of it - but VERY apposite for Lineker) ... Freelancers who work(ed) on HMRC CIT systems, decided to decline services in protest against the IR35 regime. Experienced hands, but completely vindicated (why provide service to the very entity that is specifically targeting you with unjust law ?? ) . An acquaintance of mine, who has long sat on accounting/tax working groups, said that HMRC personnel had told him the following : They had expected a serious hit to their CIT programmes. What had actually happened was they got in people (I assume permies mainly - but I guess some freelance) who were : 1. YOUNGER 2. CHEAPER 3. allegedly producing BETTER systems (functionality, performance etc)
In an ideal world I agree there would be no boundaries. Even so being tribal animals a stranger entering the territory of another was often likely to be attacked. That has simply been formalised due to the establishment of countries - and makes some sense as people living there pay taxes etc etc as you point out. The practicalities of drawing boundaries round VOWH or Cardiff make it unfeasible even if someone wanted it. That is not the case for the 200 or so countries in today's world. You may like the option of choosing where you live but most countries would need to also want you for you to live there - two sides of the same coin. Your last point suggests most nation sates allow free movement - is that the case? I thought most countries had passports and allow in only someone they choose to permit. Which countries could you unilaterally decide to emigrate to? In my ideal world there would be one tenth of the current world's population. Resources would no longer be scarce and people would be less protective about what they have. The planet would be free of global warming and we would not have to live on top of each other. Also in that ideal world the government would be one world government with no wars to fight and no food or other poverty. Taxes would therefore be minimal and go mainly on health and education - totally free for everybody. It is my belief that it is overpopulation that is the greatest threat to humankind - but absolutely nobody talks about it.
I completely agree. Prosperity reduces the birthrate and for that reason alone we should be concerned about the standard of living throughout the world.
OK - you are still far ahead of me. See my response to Powerspurs for my "ideal" In this world though. Every country has citizens. Every country has passports. Every country has laws. Rule of law is essential to the functioning of a civilised society. Therefore whatever policies a country chooses to adopt in admittting new citizens has to be governed by laws. No civilised other country (or international treaty) will try to enforce a country to accept someone. To be a respected member of the international community though you would expect a country to be generous to outsiders - admitting people for a variety of reasons. Some economic - to benefit not only those immigrants but also their new host country. Some for emergency - fleeing active wars. Some socio-political. What you do not expect though is for a country to admit people who have entered illegally. Apart from the fact that is possibly jumping a queue but also because you want new citizens to be those who respect laws. For me that is my position. I will not try to defend the way Britain behaves. The Tory party seems corrupt almost to the core and I have no love for Labour either. What is fairly self evident to me is that anyone who voted Brexit is tasting the fruits of their folly.
But it would have to be something far more drastic than Lineker’s tweets to have the effect you suggest - and would probably merit some disciplinary action if that was the case. There are precedents for presenters saying outrageous things or behaving badly and being dismissed - Keys and Gray, for example. I can’t accept Lineker falls into that category. A small minority might stop paying the licence fee because they don’t like Lineker’s tweets, but then I’ve read that others are not paying because of the BBC’s reaction. Either way, I don’t accept that the impact would be anything other than nominal.
On the subject of Campbell, every single time they've had him on since Thursday the BBC always mention his podcast is produced by Lineker's production company Remind me when, if ever, they've mentioned where one of the Tufton Street drones are from when they're crowbarred onto the Question Time or Daily Politics panel?
If the cost ratio of BBC tax : Sky Sports subscription is M:N, than the latter would have to lose M/N more subscribers to have the same effect. Given that M:N is today about 1:2, Sky Sports UK would be twice as vulnerable as the BBC. So we get to the truth of it : 1. Individuals should have much right of "freedom of expression" as is possible, irrespective of their particulars. 2. Entities can choose to have those of #1 as part of their worker pool 3. Those in #2 can be (rightly or wrongfully) "tarred by association" by the antics of #1, and suffer financially for it, So what protections should there be for #3 ?? If the answer is "none" , fair enough. But I will demand the law be changed so that if BBC / Sky Sports etc take a big hit therein, and attempt to raise their subscription costs to cover solely that loss, they will be fined such an amount they will rue the day they were born into this world. If the answer is "some" , then we need to define what that will be in the context of #1 (adhere to the '3 Cs' , achieve a "global maximum" solution etc) .
I would suggest we are very much on the same side of the argument. The definition of 'illegal' - or perhaps more the case of the Tory interpretation of it - is unfortunately a major issue. It is absolutely right that countries should retain control of who arrives. There will clearly be individuals that should not be allowed in, for very specific reasons such as criminality or terrorism etc. Unfortunately, that argument has been corrupted by the UK Government and their blatant attempts to subvert international law. I too have little faith in the likely next Government. Ideally, there would be a Centre-Left coalition with Greens and SNP able to exert influence, but probably too much to hope for. But as long as it isn't Tory the UK may survive!
