Gary Lineker

[DUNCAN DONUTS]

Hello Anti Defamation League boss Mr
Jonathan Greenblatt

You must log in or register to see media

 

[chinacanary]

Hello Anti Defamation League boss Mr
Jonathan Greenblatt

Did you copy and paste that from your favourite newspaper? Hilarious. I see your moniker is "Social Justice Warrior". I'm confused now. Your previous posts hint at the opposite.

 

[DUNCAN DONUTS]

Did you copy and paste that from your favourite newspaper? Hilarious. I see your moniker is "Social Justice Warrior". I'm confused now. Your previous posts hint at the opposite.

Bravermam is a marginalised person of color that married a Jewish person .

Gary is a straight wite rich white man.

By default he's the aggressor

 

[DUNCAN DONUTS]

Anyhow what did Boris, Hancock & the Iraqi guy that got memory holed for tax evasion do to mess things up?

Gary Lineker endorsed the jabs & was paid to do it

 

[ncgandy]

Loving the Tory political broadcasts.

 

[DUNCAN DONUTS]

Loving the Tory political broadcasts.

You must log in or register to see media

 

[ncgandy]

Bit of music from my era, lovely.

Part edited because I shouldn't post after sampling that amount of alcohol.

Good luck tomorrow (today) you yellows. Dave would have enjoyed this one.

 

[DUNCAN DONUTS]

You must log in or register to see media

 

[carrowcanario]

He compared the language to the rhetoric used in the 1930s in Germany.

I think that's what he said, but I've yet to see any examples or other evidence to support that view. Whilst I'm far from a Tory, I think generally speaking they and certainly those in government positions have been very careful not to use inflammatory language. Stating facts and forming an opinion that is different from the government for me is not an issue. Using your government funded privileged position in order to falsely try and to attach labels to people in government that your disagree with either directly or indirectly kind of is.

 

[chinacanary]

I think that's what he said, but I've yet to see any examples or other evidence to support that view. Whilst I'm far from a Tory, I think generally speaking they and certainly those in government positions have been very careful not to use inflammatory language. Stating facts and forming an opinion that is different from the government for me is not an issue. Using your government funded privileged position in order to falsely try and to attach labels to people in government that your disagree with either directly or indirectly kind of is.

Well, Suella Braverman suggested that 100 million asylum seekers could come to the UK without her crackdown. Also the "law-abiding patriotic majority" had had enough of people arriving on small boats. Read into that what you will, but it certainly flames the fires for people who lean to the right. I would suggest that she is creating division when the country is on its knees - plenty of other issues that are a priority - cost of living, heating bills, dire state of the health system - **** they cannot fix cos they broke it and continue to break it after 13 years of feathering their own pockets. I think Lineker was speaking about the rhetoric of blaming the minorities that was a feature of 1930s Germany - an easy target when there are so many other bigger issues. If someone with such a big platform cannot speak for those who feel the same way, there is no opposition.

 

[Canary Rob]

Yeah stuff like “patriotic majority” is an insult to those who disagree. And the claim that it’s a majority she’s speaking for is undemocratic and offensive too, given the Tory vote share in 2019 was 42.4% so a long way short of a majority - and that’s just voters. Only around 20% of the population actually voted Tory.

It’s the problem with our system mixed with her sort of rhetoric, allowing claims that they are somehow implementing the “will of the people”, when in fact a minority and only a slim plurality actually support them.

It’s dangerous stuff given they’ve already undermined our institutions and instilled a PM voted upon by a mere hundred thousand people. I don’t think the Nazi Germany comparison is ever wise, but the accusation that this is the sort of behaviour of authoritarian regimes is absolutely fair. The UN have condemned it. We talk about Qatar violating human rights and then we do it!

And why Gary Lineker should be banned from saying that I cannot work out, especially as they’ve stocked the BBC with Conservative members who are quite happy to be pro-Government policy without fear of being sacked.

 

[carrowcanario]

Well, Suella Braverman suggested that 100 million asylum seekers could come to the UK without her crackdown. Also the "law-abiding patriotic majority" had had enough of people arriving on small boats. Read into that what you will, but it certainly flames the fires for people who lean to the right. I would suggest that she is creating division when the country is on its knees - plenty of other issues that are a priority - cost of living, heating bills, dire state of the health system - **** they cannot fix cos they broke it and continue to break it after 13 years of feathering their own pockets. I think Lineker was speaking about the rhetoric of blaming the minorities that was a feature of 1930s Germany - an easy target when there are so many other bigger issues. If someone with such a big platform cannot speak for those who feel the same way, there is no opposition.

I still don't see how someone articulating a view other than his equates to them using the language or rhetoric used in the 1930s in Germany. I would say that in my view, if anything the 1930's teach us that if you ignore the genuine concerns or grievances of large sections of the population and try and demonise them then you get the rise of extremism. Some people would say this is how Brexit happened. You attribute 2 comments to Braverman. I don't know, but but I expect knowing her track record that what you say is correct, although as always context is King. I suppose the question is, is what she said factually correct or not. If it's true, why shouldn't she say if, it's hardly inflammatory, accept perhaps the inclusion of the word patriotic. Why does one side of an argument get to decide that a discussion on an issue can only be had on the facts that they accept. Is the country on it's knees ? Who decides what are the countries priorities ? Are your priorities fully or partially impacted by the asylum seeker issues ? What's more important than trying to prevent people dying ? So you interpret Lineker's comments to the rhetoric of blaming minorities that were a feature of 1930's Germany. I personally don't make that link, but then perhaps my understanding of what happened in the 1930's is different to yours. Who's blaming asylum seekers, I thought the focus was very much on the criminal gangs and other factors that allow this vile trade to happen.

 

[chinacanary]

Yeah stuff like “patriotic majority” is an insult to those who disagree. And the claim that it’s a majority she’s speaking for is undemocratic and offensive too, given the Tory vote share in 2019 was 42.4% so a long way short of a majority - and that’s just voters. Only around 20% of the population actually voted Tory.

It’s the problem with our system mixed with her sort of rhetoric, allowing claims that they are somehow implementing the “will of the people”, when in fact a minority and only a slim plurality actually support them.

It’s dangerous stuff given they’ve already undermined our institutions and instilled a PM voted upon by a mere hundred thousand people. I don’t think the Nazi Germany comparison is ever wise, but the accusation that this is the sort of behaviour of authoritarian regimes is absolutely fair. The UN have condemned it. We talk about Qatar violating human rights and then we do it!

And why Gary Lineker should be banned from saying that I cannot work out, especially as they’ve stocked the BBC with Conservative members who are quite happy to be pro-Government policy without fear of being sacked.

"And why Gary Lineker should be banned from saying that I cannot work out, especially as they’ve stocked the BBC with Conservative members who are quite happy to be pro-Government policy without fear of being sacked" - I believe it's the Conservative Members who run the BBC that feel so threatened by dissent. Lord Alan Sugar posted a photoshopped image of Corbyn at a Hitler rally which received no wrist slap. Clarkson, when in the employ of the Beeb, suggested that people who strike should be shot in front of their families. The director of the BBC was happy to find someone to loan former PM Johnson 800k. There's a theme here...

 

[GozoCanary]

I still don't see how someone articulating a view other than his equates to them using the language or rhetoric used in the 1930s in Germany. I would say that in my view, if anything the 1930's teach us that if you ignore the genuine concerns or grievances of large sections of the population and try and demonise them then you get the rise of extremism. Some people would say this is how Brexit happened. You attribute 2 comments to Braverman. I don't know, but but I expect knowing her track record that what you say is correct, although as always context is King. I suppose the question is, is what she said factually correct or not. If it's true, why shouldn't she say if, it's hardly inflammatory, accept perhaps the inclusion of the word patriotic. Why does one side of an argument get to decide that a discussion on an issue can only be had on the facts that they accept. Is the country on it's knees ? Who decides what are the countries priorities ? Are your priorities fully or partially impacted by the asylum seeker issues ? What's more important than trying to prevent people dying ? So you interpret Lineker's comments to the rhetoric of blaming minorities that were a feature of 1930's Germany. I personally don't make that link, but then perhaps my understanding of what happened in the 1930's is different to yours. Who's blaming asylum seekers, I thought the focus was very much on the criminal gangs and other factors that allow this vile trade to happen.

Well, a hundred million asylum seekers waiting to come to the UK is obviously factually incorrect, similar to the 90 million Turks who were going to come to the UK if we didn't vote for Brexit. Furthermore, she must know it's a lie and is just using it to stoke discord and hatred.

I don't think Lineker was wise to use the Nazi example for the simple reason that it weakens his argument (a variation on Godwin's Law), but I think his general point is correct (and would have been much more strongly made and persuasive if he had used 'authoritarian regimes' rather than the Nazi reference he made.

 

[carrowcanario]

Well, a hundred million asylum seekers waiting to come to the UK is obviously factually incorrect, similar to the 90 million Turks who were going to come to the UK if we didn't vote for Brexit. Furthermore, she must know it's a lie and is just using it to stoke discord and hatred.

I don't think Lineker was wise to use the Nazi example for the simple reason that it weakens his argument (a variation on Godwin's Law), but I think his general point is correct (and would have been much more strongly made and persuasive if he had used 'authoritarian regimes' rather than the Nazi reference he made.

I think the point she was trying to make is that the opposite of limited immigration is unlimited immigration. If you are going to have limited immigration then you need effective law to achieve that and that she is of the view the currently the law is ineffective. I doubt she actually said hundred million asylum seekers waiting to come to the UK, but she may have, and that isn't the same as what chinacanary said, she said.

But that was not the point Linaker was making. He was effectively saying that anyone who expressed a view or used facts or said things that were not consistent with his view was using language similar to those expressed by Nazi supporters in the 30's. Whilst you or I might take the view the language used by Braveman was flawed , it is nothing compare with the sort of language that was used in Germany in the 30's and in my view anyone who thinks it is, really doesn't understand what was being said and going on in Germany in the 30's.

In my view Linaker didn't have the intellect to argue his case and took the easy option of trying to demonise those who don't agree with him by indirectly trying to label them as Nazi's. In that respect he is representative of the majority of the British public. At best his language was clumsy and in that respect he is not that dissimilar to the a lot of politicians.

As I said in a much earlier post I don't think he should be sack for expressing a view that is not illegal, he has the right to offend, just like Clarkson. He may or may not however be in breach of his contract, if he is then it's a matter for his employers as to how the breach is proceeded with. In my view they should get rid of him because I believe there are far more talented people that can do what he does for a fraction of the cost. If he wants to die on his own sword, fine, I just wished he'd displayed the same moral courage over the world cup.

 

[DUNCAN DONUTS]

Perhaps all the BBC staff that decided to not work in solidarity with Gary will donate a month's pay to the cost of the migrant hotels that we are forced to pay for , much like the license fee itself

 

[RiverEndRick]

I think the point she was trying to make is that the opposite of limited immigration is unlimited immigration. If you are going to have limited immigration then you need effective law to achieve that and that she is of the view the currently the law is ineffective. I doubt she actually said hundred million asylum seekers waiting to come to the UK, but she may have, and that isn't the same as what chinacanary said, she said.

But that was not the point Linaker was making. He was effectively saying that anyone who expressed a view or used facts or said things that were not consistent with his view was using language similar to those expressed by Nazi supporters in the 30's. Whilst you or I might take the view the language used by Braveman was flawed , it is nothing compare with the sort of language that was used in Germany in the 30's and in my view anyone who thinks it is, really doesn't understand what was being said and going on in Germany in the 30's.

In my view Linaker didn't have the intellect to argue his case and took the easy option of trying to demonise those who don't agree with him by indirectly trying to label them as Nazi's. In that respect he is representative of the majority of the British public. At best his language was clumsy and in that respect he is not that dissimilar to the a lot of politicians.

As I said in a much earlier post I don't think he should be sack for expressing a view that is not illegal, he has the right to offend, just like Clarkson. He may or may not however be in breach of his contract, if he is then it's a matter for his employers as to how the breach is proceeded with. In my view they should get rid of him because I believe there are far more talented people that can do what he does for a fraction of the cost. If he wants to die on his own sword, fine, I just wished he'd displayed the same moral courage over the world cup.

The net immigration into the UK last year (ie. those coming in minus those going out) was 503,000, of which 43,000 came in small boats. To call those people, 8.5% of total net immigration, an 'invasion' is deliberately inflammatory language like that used in Germany in the 1930s.

Similarly, referring to the millions of refugees around the world as an immediate threat to the UK is similarly inflammatory language, designed to distort the situation very much like Germany in the 1930s and like there, it works with too many people who fail to look at the actual numbers.

 

[DUNCAN DONUTS]

I'm sure the student that got stabbed by an asylum seeker that arrived on a small boat from France is also a Nazi

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/horror-moment-knifeman-stabs-student-29412262

 

[ncgandy]

.

 

[GozoCanary]

I think the point she was trying to make is that the opposite of limited immigration is unlimited immigration. I

Whilst you or I might take the view the language used by Braveman was flawed , it is nothing compare with the sort of language that was used in Germany in the 30's and in my view anyone who thinks it is, really doesn't understand what was being said and going on in Germany in the 30's.

1) In that case, why didn't she simply say what you said? What does talk of 'invasions' and '100 million asylum seekers' add to the argument other than deliberate and malevolent emotionalism?

2) It took many years for the vile anti-Semitic propaganda to build up in Germany during the 1930s. That's how hateful propaganda works - each year it gets ratcheted up another notch until something like Kristallnacht (1938) becomes possible. Braverman's provocative language is the first step in this process and IMO she knows exactly what she is doing. Whether this is just for personal ambition or whether she genuinely believes what she says is irrelevant, (although my own opinion is that she will resign from Sunak's government at some point and try to position herself as a leader-in-waiting).

3) As I said in another reply, I don't think it was wise of Lineker to raise the Nazis because this has given Braverman a convenient shield to hide her malice and self-interest behind.