Lineker Tweet

My best mate is a lifelong Tory, but is right behind Lineker. He popped round today, so I got ready for a good old fracas.
Ended up agreeing with each other over a piece of lemon cake and a brew.
Not sure what to make of it, so I'll sleep on it. Might have to go round to his place tomorrow to see if he's started eating Walkers Crisps again.

What if Lineker had openly supported Government's new migrant policy? Clearly an opinion. Would he have been suspended for that political viewpoint?

In any case, the fact is that he correctly pointed out that it was the language used by Braverman and co. that was distatefully similar to the rhetoric bandied about in 1930's Germany. He refrained from direct comment on actual Tory policy or on ministers' willingness to change or challenge the Law to deter all migrants, legal or illegal.

Sluffy wrote:However in Lineker's case you simply can't have some high profile person on the BBC publicly likening government policy to the Nazism of Hitler.

More Sluffy fake news.

He never mentioned Hitler or the Nazis.

Sluffy should definitely be taken off the site until he apologises.

karlypants wrote:

https://twitter.com/martindaubney/status/1634871103876399105?s=46&t=cFbOTv00C8LyA3hO2c-h3w

GB NEWS bloke. Brilliant. Not up to Truss standard though. Showing promise though.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Sluffy wrote:However in Lineker's case you simply can't have some high profile person on the BBC publicly likening government policy to the Nazism of Hitler.

More Sluffy fake news.

He never mentioned Hitler or the Nazis.

Sluffy should definitely be taken off the site until he apologises.

This is his tweet.

He 'likens' the language being similar to Germany's in the 1930's in respect of the same issue.

Hitler's Nazi party came to power in Germany in 1933 with Hitler as the Chancellor.

In 1934 he became the Dictator of Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_Germany#:~:text=The%20chancellor%20of%20Germany%2C%20officially,German%20Armed%20Forces%20during%20wartime.




It's pretty blatant what Lineker was implying in his tweet.

Let's be honest, he went far to far - and knew the consequences of what he was doing - but still went ahead and did so.

It isn't about free speech at all.

He could have said freely what he did having no ties to the BBC - he knowingly put the BBC in a difficult spot by embroiling it in politics.

If the BBC did nothing it is damned by the right.

If it did something it is damned by the left.

The BBC did nothing to bring this shitstorm on itself - it was all Lineker's doing.

Rightly or wrongly (wrongly imo) his mates stood with him and in effect closed the football side of the BBC TV down with them (until the viewing figures came out anyway!).

Sometimes you have to stand up and tell your mate that they were wrong - he should have cut his ties with the BBC if he wanted to tweet what he did.

These days unfortunately sticking by your mate seems to be more important than sticking up for the right thing.

The right thing was for him to keep his views to himself whilst involved with the BBC or leaving the BBC and saying whatever he had a mind to.

Why is no one, anywhere, asking why people are paying reportedly over a thousand pounds each, to risk their lives, to illegally enter the UK, by leaving a free and safe country, avoiding the French police trying to stop them acting illegally, to claim asylum in the UK because it is presumably safer here than France - which of course it isn't!

The story should be about the entitled Gary Lineker's political pop at the government but facing up to the fact that these illegals are coming here not for safety but because they see us as presumably the softest touch of any country in Europe (otherwise they would be heading there are not here).

They are coming here, risking their lives for a reason - and it isn't because we are freer or safer than France which they've just left - is it?

Tax-dodging popinjays, slebs on high horses

Air-headed media that give them their voices

Half-witted pea-brains whose bell seldom rings

These are a few of my favourite things


 
Charlatans, shysters and snotty-nosed herberts

Football supporters in NoKenDo T-shirts

Wussies and pussies who sit in the wings

These are a few of my favourite things


 
Diving and cheating and pundits and plonkers


Smarmy as Smarmite or stark raving bonkers


Overpaid players who think they are Kings


These are a few of my favourite things

Sluffy wrote:It's pretty blatant what Lineker was implying in his tweet.

Let's be honest, he went far to far - and knew the consequences of what he was doing - but still went ahead and did so.

It isn't about free speech at all.

Went too far? He was spot on with what he said. This government is treating all migrants like criminals. A fooking disgrace is what it is.

The Tories are clearly playing to their right wing fan base in the hope they can drum up some votes at the next election, even though we all know this "policy" has zero chance of being put in to practice as it's clearly illegal.

Sluffy wrote:Just two in 8 years according to this...

Even Rashford has been seen down his favourite foodbank more than that!

Fair play to them both actually but it seems their commitment from both of them suggests to me that it is more of a token gesture from them, than a real passion of theirs to change the world on these things.

Let me guess, it's two more than you took in?

And of all the overpaid footballers you and Bob could constantly abuse, you pick the one who has actually tried to do something to benefit other people.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Went too far? He was spot on with what he said. This government is treating all migrants like criminals. A fooking disgrace is what it is.

The Tories are clearly playing to their right wing fan base in the hope they can drum up some votes at the next election, even though we all know this "policy" has zero chance of being put in to practice as it's clearly illegal.

Spot on, Nat.

John Crace in The Guardian has just written a spoof dialogue between Suella and Rishi: You've got to laugh.....


Rishi Sunak: Good work this week, Suella.


Suella Braverman: Thank you, prime minister. I really think we have got illegal immigrants on the run now.

Sunak: What makes you say that? All our other bills have failed. Why should this one be any different?


Braverman: Then what was the point of it?


Sunak: Sorry. I forgot that you’re not very bright. Let me spell it out to you. Obviously, we have no centres to detain anyone. Nor do we have any deportation agreements with third countries. Apart from Rwanda, which will take 200. Though we haven’t yet deported anyone there. And obviously the lefty lawyers will try to make us obey the law to stop us. But we’ll get great headlines from the Mail and the Telegraph for looking as if we’re trying.


Braverman: Oh. I see.

Sunak: Really?


Braverman: Not entirely. Let me just check. We do still hate immigrants, don’t we?


Sunak: Of course. Very much so.


Braverman: Well, that’s alright then.


Sunak: Just keep on doing what you’re doing. Don’t get hung up on what I said about professionalism, integrity and accountability. That was just a Downing Street soundbite. Hell, I’d never have appointed you as home secretary if I’d meant anyone to take it seriously. After all, you had only been caught breaking the ministerial code – again – just six days earlier. Your job is just to be a lightning rod for halfwits like Jacob Rees-Mogg and Lee Anderson.


Braverman: Phew!


Sunak: Talking of which. How are you getting on with the ghastly woke blob?


Braverman: You mean, my civil servants?

Rashford spoke up for children who have no voice of their own.

Lineker spoke up for migrants who have no voice of their own.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Sluffy wrote:It's pretty blatant what Lineker was implying in his tweet.

Let's be honest, he went far to far - and knew the consequences of what he was doing - but still went ahead and did so.

It isn't about free speech at all.

Went too far? He was spot on with what he said. This government is treating all migrants like criminals. A fooking disgrace is what it is.

The Tories are clearly playing to their right wing fan base in the hope they can drum up some votes at the next election, even though we all know this "policy" has zero chance of being put in to practice as it's clearly illegal.

He's free to express his political views, he's free to be contracted to the BBC.

The thing is (as you know full well - but I'll still humour you) is that he can't do both at the same time as the BBC has to be seen to be impartial otherwise it looses its credibility in the eyes of the people and becomes the same as Fox or GB NEWS where there is clear political bias in their reporting and attracts polarisation and 'confirmation bias' and breeds the nutjobs who believe what they want to hear.

This isn't about the Tory policy on boat people, nor Lineker's right to free speech, it is about maintaining the impartiality of perhaps one of the last bastions of an international news organisation that is as impartial as it can be.

As I'm writing this news has broken that Lineker will return and an independent review of the BBC's social media guidelines will take place.

Linker has said he will be back on match of the day this weekend.

It's about time the BBC got rid tbh as someone who works for the broadcaster having so much control over the company is ridiculous.

This should sort the other big headed twats out!

Lineker is ace.

As are some of the pundits.

Match of the Day is part of my Saturday night ritual, I'm chuffed it's back at the weekend.

I couldn't care less what he earns.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Just two in 8 years according to this...

Even Rashford has been seen down his favourite foodbank more than that!

Fair play to them both actually but it seems their commitment from both of them suggests to me that it is more of a token gesture from them, than a real passion of theirs to change the world on these things.

Let me guess, it's two more than you took in?

And of all the overpaid footballers you and Bob could constantly abuse, you pick the one who has actually tried to do something to benefit other people.

We aren't the one's who uses high profile, monetarising ourselves.

They have.

If these two multimillionaires really care so much, then why don't they go beyond the occasional photoshoot at the local foodbank (when was Rashford last even seen there...) or St Gary, who has loads of space in his house he tells us, with his four sons all grown up, managed to take in just TWO asylum seekers in 8 years?

I would imagine a lot less high profile footballers have done a great deal more for their community and those in need without advertising the fact - or getting even richer for telling everyone about it!

I'm not sure how you take on the government (and win) on free school meals without being high profile.

You really have turned into a cynical old bugger.

Natasha Whittam wrote:I'm not sure how you take on the government (and win) on free school meals without being high profile.

You really have turned into a cynical old bugger.

Hardly surprising considering I was always a cynical young bugger too.

I think this world would be a much better place if people were more sceptical about what they see and hear from social media rather than swallowing it whole without question as most seem to do these days.

Fwiw I think young Rashford believed in the cause of free school meals but was cynically exploited by his agent to opportunistically cash in on him previously having to had to use free school meals and foodbanks as a kid growing up - when the issue arose recently.

There's no record of him having any crusade about free school meals and the growing number of food banks arising, before the Covid/free school meal issue arose - and precious little heard or seen of him since the high profile PR campaign of Team Rashford ended - with him receiving his MBE (and a whopping financial boost to his image rights company he is sole beneficiary of!).

Similarly Lineker likes to see himself as a lefty and people person but at the same time looking to avoid (evade?) paying £5m in income tax (to the public purse) by the manipulation of how he was paid by the BBC.

His heart my be in the right place but his wallet clearly means more to him though, I would suggest.


I've tried to explain once before, sometime ago on here, that if you go out of your way to push someone (in this case the government) sooner or later they will push back.

The result is that the 'gap' between the sides gets larger and larger - and the 'push back' from each side gets stronger and stronger.

That what's happened in society over the last couple of decades or so (is it a coincidence that this coincides with the advent of social media too?  I think not...) we've become polarised and intolerant of the others position - just look at the massive divide in American politics, or the open hostility to all things Tory frequently found on social media.

It's an unhealth position we find ourselves in today and I can't see it getting better anytime soon.

I might well be cynical but unfortunately I'm a realist too.

As Churchill said, it is better to jaw, jaw than to war, war!

Did Lineker really need to liken the government to Nazi's?

Of course he didn't and he stirred up all this shit for the BBC for nothing.

Why do I say nothing - because the policy hasn't changed in the least has it - nor would it have ever done because a 'celebrity' has tweeted something to his 'confirmation' biased followers on social media to howl about.

That's the world we live in today but most people seem completely oblivious to it unfortunately.

Cynicism appears to have been almost totally replace by gullibility these days, it seems.

Monkey see, monkey do comes to mind for those on social media following their Confirmation bias 'guru's' like Lineker on there.

Look what's happened to Fox News. Proven liars, and still pushing the lies.

And people are still willing to believe them.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend".

This is real. Honest.