[Football] Gary Lineker to step back from presenting MOTD

[Titanic]

Gary Lineker to step back from presenting MOTD

Gary Lineker to step back from presenting Match of the Day until agreement reached on social media use - BBC statement

www.bbc.co.uk

Gary Lineker is to step back from presenting Match of the Day until an agreement is reached on his social media use - BBC statement.
It follows an impartiality row over comments he made criticising the government's new asylum policy.
In a tweet, the presenter had compared the language used by the government to set out its plan to "that used by Germany in the 30s".

 

[Eric the meek]

I’m not one to defend Sunak but could see this being sidetracked for a simple error, that’s all.

Absolutely !

Once you had alerted me to my cock-up, I moved the fastest I've moved this century!

 

[Thunder Bolt]

After the good work that Tim Davie did to calm the waters and reduce the temperature, now this happens.

Here is what Sunak said:

'Let’s be clear, when I talk about upsetting people I’m talking about the Twitterati, the Wokerati of north Islington, those champagne socialists who pontificate all day.
“Those are the people I don’t care upsetting, because those are the people who want to call people up here racist bigots, Nazis, like Gary Lineker has done.”

This is language - and falsehood - unbecoming of our Prime Minister.

It was Jonathan Gullis, not Sunak!

 

[Mo Gosfield]

The distinction, at the moment, is that illegal immigrants, when caught, are deported after detention.

This bill, the government is pushing through, is to enable them to imprison every person landing without trial, for deportation, and not consider asylum claims.
This will make matters worse, because the boats will still land, but instead of asking for help, the landers will disappear into the black market, trafficking and other horrors.

A lot of the people landing are economic migrants ( usually young men ) who already have transport waiting to pick them up and whisk them off to the Black Economy somewhere in the UK. They are not the ones who need to ask for help. They have work provided and a roof over their heads. Their prospective employers subsidise some of their travel costs, in return for the guarantee of a cheap labour intake and cash in hand employment. A lot escape detection, alighting at night or the early hours. These individuals are looking to better their lot economically and are not looking to seek asylum. These men are not usually in mixed boats, with women and children.
On the other hand, there are many who are genuine asylum seekers, fleeing in desperation from persecution, imprisonment or worse. They stump up £15k-£20k of their hard earned life savings or scrape and borrow from family or friends, to end up in even more danger, aboard an overcrowded inflatable, in choppy seas, with no real idea of what awaits them. They are gambling on their futures. They end up in holding areas, seeking a hearing.
Meanwhile, the traffickers who are behind all this and are exploiting these people, are getting richer and richer, putting lives at risk on a daily basis and very few seem to get caught, proved by the steady stream of boats.
It is like dealing with foul pest by rounding up all the eggs and getting rid of them, whilst leaving the infected chickens running around. The problem has to be dealt with at source. The demand for asylum will still remain and countries will have to agree and support proper channels of movement for these people. We cannot allow them to be treated like animals ( nay..worse even ) by the scum behind all this.

 

[Guinness Boy]

But he did say he was against it, before carting the wheelbarrow full of cash to the bank.

People who hate Labour - "socialism would be terrible, the country would be ruined"

Also people who hate Labour - "I can't believe how much money that successful person earns"

 

[Eric the meek]

It was Jonathan Gullis, not Sunak!

Yes, thanks. Please see previous posts.

 

[Audax]

We turned boats back regularly.

Research

Research

www.aph.gov.au

That is in violation of international law.



That was 2021.

Yes, and that's not a policy I support nor endorse. I am, however, willing to accept it as a) travelling to Australia by boat is / was far more dangerous than crossing the channel is, and b) was accompanied by other policy approaches that have significantly reduced the number of boats attempting to reach Australia.

What I am referring to with the UK situation is an accumulation of policy and legal changes that put the UK, IMO, in a more hostile-to-asylum-seekers situation than Australia. In particular:

Australia allows asylum claims to be made from outside the country - there is, therefore, no need for asylum seekers to make the trip by boat. Australia's problem with boats arose because asylum seekers were told that being in Australia would get their claim processed faster. Australia have ensured this is legally impossible and is part of what has reduced the number of boats attempting the trip. The average number of boats attempting the trip to Australia is massively down on what it once was, and Australia does not turn back all boats - it only does so if safe to do so and where it is unsafe they are brought on-shore in Australia. Conversely, the UK has now for some years removed the ability to make an asylum claim from outside the country. Those wishing to claim asylum in the UK must first have entered the country. The new law recently proposed now goes even further and proposes to permanently exclude those who arrive "illegally"* with an intention to claim asylum from being considered. While Australia have a similar legal framework in place, it has not been used in practice; there is what currently appears to be a permanent ministerial waiver in place.

There is also the topic that triggered this thread: the language being used by our Tory politicians. While I am aware some Australian politicians got pretty lairy with their language re: boat arrivals (a certain Pauline Hansen comes to mind), I don't recall ever hearing government ministers using the extreme language that UK ministers are using over here. In Australia the language was robust and blunt. Over here it has been, and increasingly so, crossing over into being dangerously inflammatory.



* It is debatable (see other posts in this thread) whether the current legal situation actually defines those who enter "irregularly" with the intent to seek asylum as "illegal" or not. Tory politicians would certainly have us believe they are "illegal migrants", but the actual legal situation is as yet robustly untested as far as I'm aware. The government has certainly found it difficult to actually convict / deport anyone under the existing legal frameworks, hence the new law they have proposed.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

Set the cap for refugees at 50% of the total deported the previous year. Then do it for 20 years. Those who want refugees would then be forced to sort the system out and it would begin to restore public confidence in the process.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

After the good work that Tim Davie did to calm the waters and reduce the temperature, now this happens.

Here is what Sunak said:

'Let’s be clear, when I talk about upsetting people I’m talking about the Twitterati, the Wokerati of north Islington, those champagne socialists who pontificate all day.
“Those are the people I don’t care upsetting, because those are the people who want to call people up here racist bigots, Nazis, like Gary Lineker has done.”

This is language - and falsehood - unbecoming of our Prime Minister.

Just in case it hadn't been mentioned, that wasn't Sunak who said that...

 

[rogersix]

I wouldn't have a clue what they will do, why, what do you think they will do?

lie

 

[rogersix]

Can't understand why this thread is still classified as 'football' (if indeed it ever should have been). Hopefully soon in the Bear Pit - Bozza's Albion only filter is a good idea, but there are interesting threads on other topics too. Still, I can just carry on ignoring this thread, as I have been doing for the last couple of days anyway.
Wonder what it'll take to get it shoved into there.......?

why do you hope this thread isn't discussed on the main board?

 

[rogersix]

As Rio Ferdinand would say 1 billion per cent Gary

you're very uncomfortable debating this topic aswell, why's that?

 

[rogersix]

No problem.

It's as good a contribution as many of the collection of outrage on one side, and virtue signalling on the other, posts which make up a good proportion of posts on a thread which goes political like this.

good input

i enjoy spending my time doing something positive

 

[rogersix]

Not yet. Give it time.

And it won't be mssed.

so nothing better to do then

 

[rogersix]

Oh dear. The Mary Whitehouse gambit. Desperate!

do a crossword, or a word search, something.............. colouring in?

 

[Weststander]

I love the stand of GL and other celebs against trophy hunting and the import of the murderous spoils.

A disgusting hobby carried out by scum.

 

[rogersix]

Maybe because it's all about Gary Lineker, politics, the Government, immigrarion and Germany in the 30s?

Thanks for your concern, but it's not affecting me. I'm happy to leave others to keep it going ..................... and I dare say they will!

whilst you and @lamie robertson watch on

pervy!

 

[rogersix]

If he’s such a moral man , why didn’t he take a stand over the World Cup & that countries appalling human rights record . Seemed happy to take the money then .

is he a better man than you?

is that what you are actually upset about?

 

[rogersix]

I’m not saying it’s only Lineker , I’m sure he’s a decent enough man if a little full of himself at times . But lots of well known ‘ celebs’ I hate that word, endorse various good causes concerning justice & human rights but then you find out later they have done a private show or event for some Uber rich person or regime with very dodgy human rights etc . All am I saying is that not everyone is black and white , there are grey areas for many so called celebrities.

just because you can't do everything, it doesn't mean you should do nothing

 

[KZNSeagull]

I see Mr "Stop Brexit" and his mates outside parliament are now playing the MOTD theme tune and kicking a football about when the BBC interviewer is asking people about the budget.

 

[BadFish]

Set the cap for refugees at 50% of the total deported the previous year. Then do it for 20 years. Those who want refugees would then be forced to sort the system out and it would begin to restore public confidence in the process.

No need for such a convoluted scheme to try and motivate people to take action.

Surely just voting for government with a plan to sort the system out would work better. The Tories have had 13 years to sort it out and have not done so. Deliberately or out of incompetence surely it's time to give someone else a go?

You are going to be unlucky to have another government whose plan contravenes international and sovereign law and still fails to improve anything.

Hopefully the constant dog whistling to the extremes of the debate haven't scuppered any chance of a moderate and sensible policy being accepted by the right wing press.