[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".

 

[Triggaaar]

I think most people are standing up for free speech rather than endorsing his opinion

Personally I don't mind the BBC saying that it's presenters can't post political opinion, as long as it applies to all presenters. But plenty of their presenters post political opinion.

 

[Is it PotG?]

He pointed out the similarities in the language being used by Braverman and this government in their dog whistle rhetoric, and that used by Germany in the 1930’s to justify their actions.

He did not accuse the British Government of being Nazis, but pointed out that the current government’s rhetoric was increasingly dehumanising, in a manner used by Germany in the build-up to Nazism, a tool used to dehumanise entire groups in society, allowing the government to act against them with relative impunity.

Any government that believes it is behaving properly hears criticism and refutes it through argument, defending its position. This government has not attempted to defend the rhetoric used, it has “played the man not the ball” and deflected all the attention onto the individual who has criticised them. An old trick, but clearly still effective.

I’m personally uncomfortable with the rhetoric employed by this government, I believe GL was right to call it out (provided his criticism was genuinely felt, which I’ve no reason to doubt)

However, even if I disagreed with GL, I would accept his right to an opinion and would hope an elected government of any political stripe would be able to defend itself by argument on the issue under discussion, rather than the person criticising them.

To my mind there’s real danger here. People with real (and natural) concerns over overcrowding, infrastructure and public services are being manipulated to ignore the government’s role in mismanaging its budgets and public services, and instead blame certain, often marginalised sections of the public.

E.g. “We can’t have public services because we’re being swamped with immigrants and it’s costing us billions.” Or “You can’t get a doctor’s appointment because it’s full of hormonal teenagers trying to get a sex change.”

This taps into something deep in human nature, something lots of people instinctively feel, the idea that their cultural identity is under attack from one or more groups of people who can be ‘othered’ and therefore they must mobilise to defend themselves. It’s a powerful and dangerous tool.

Those who don’t want to be closely scrutinised tend to be good at creating diversionary sideshows that distract people, take their attention, pit them against others, and often keep them angry.

I’m sorry to have written such an essay, but honestly it’s my belief that all of us, whether our politics are left or right, are being manipulated to a lesser or greater extent (I include myself in this) to stay angry and divided. I honestly believe that we are becoming increasingly divided and hostile by design, rather than by random changes in society. If we’re fighting amongst ourselves, we’re not scrutinising and challenging those who actually hold power. The best we can do is try to stay calm with each other and respectful regardless of our differences.

Apologies again for the essay.

Yet it's taken a Crisp salesman with a dodgy toe to alert us to our impending dangers.

 

[Stat Brother]

 

[LamieRobertson]

He pointed out the similarities in the language being used by Braverman and this government in their dog whistle rhetoric, and that used by Germany in the 1930’s to justify their actions.

He did not accuse the British Government of being Nazis, but pointed out that the current government’s rhetoric was increasingly dehumanising, in a manner used by Germany in the build-up to Nazism, a tool used to dehumanise entire groups in society, allowing the government to act against them with relative impunity.

Any government that believes it is behaving properly hears criticism and refutes it through argument, defending its position. This government has not attempted to defend the rhetoric used, it has “played the man not the ball” and deflected all the attention onto the individual who has criticised them. An old trick, but clearly still effective.

I’m personally uncomfortable with the rhetoric employed by this government, I believe GL was right to call it out (provided his criticism was genuinely felt, which I’ve no reason to doubt)

However, even if I disagreed with GL, I would accept his right to an opinion and would hope an elected government of any political stripe would be able to defend itself by argument on the issue under discussion, rather than the person criticising them.

To my mind there’s real danger here. People with real (and natural) concerns over overcrowding, infrastructure and public services are being manipulated to ignore the government’s role in mismanaging its budgets and public services, and instead blame certain, often marginalised sections of the public.

E.g. “We can’t have public services because we’re being swamped with immigrants and it’s costing us billions.” Or “You can’t get a doctor’s appointment because it’s full of hormonal teenagers trying to get a sex change.”

This taps into something deep in human nature, something lots of people instinctively feel, the idea that their cultural identity is under attack from one or more groups of people who can be ‘othered’ and therefore they must mobilise to defend themselves. It’s a powerful and dangerous tool.

Those who don’t want to be closely scrutinised tend to be good at creating diversionary sideshows that distract people, take their attention, pit them against others, and often keep them angry.

I’m sorry to have written such an essay, but honestly it’s my belief that all of us, whether our politics are left or right, are being manipulated to a lesser or greater extent (I include myself in this) to stay angry and divided. I honestly believe that we are becoming increasingly divided and hostile by design, rather than by random changes in society. If we’re fighting amongst ourselves, we’re not scrutinising and challenging those who actually hold power. The best we can do is try to stay calm with each other and respectful regardless of our differences.

Apologies again for the essay.

An interesting post and no need to apologise for the essay…I’m envious …typing more than four lines for me would be an achievement ….you’ll understand that i don’t necessarily agree with all of it….i see the hyped up rhetoric on both sides.
I certainly think you have a very strong argument in that paragraph at the end about division ..which i totally agree with

Thank you

 

[ManOfSussex]

Their film reviews are decent, so long as they don't mention yoga weekends or yoghurt knitting.

Bless you.

 

[rogersix]

I think @TB agreed with me that this policy after legal challenges won’t actually occur by Dec 2024. I’m calmly relaxed that one way or another it’s screwed in that we won’t see all parts in place.

Lineker isn’t a bad person at all. But I think his analogy in the big picture of what’s happened and is happening in the modern world (Putin, Uyghurs) is ill informed and nonsense.

fair does, but is he not allowed to be wrong?

 

[Is it PotG?]

Bless you. You're better than all that stuff 'cos you're well 'ard.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Calm down dear. You become part of the problem by citing extremes in an effort to “to win the internet” (as Bozza so beautifully wrote).

Nobody is being silenced. The Tories aren’t the Nazis. Braverman shouldn’t be Home Secretary. And Gary’s been a fool. About the sum of it really.

Gary’s been a fool?

He’s got Jeremy Corbyn and Piers Morgan to agree. If that’s not winning the internet, what is?

 

[Badger]

Losing the MOTD presenters is one thing, but if Garth pulls out of doing his Team of the Week that will be the final straw for me.

 

[1066familyman]

Not read the whole thread, but have heard the news about the solidarity being shown by other MotD presenters on this, and that makes me very happy indeed. Can't say I'm a fan of any of the names in question, except Ian Wright, but good on the lot of them! You can only defeat this level of sinister hypocrisy and blatant corruption through standing together.

 

[BadFish]

There were some inferred questions in my post Why do people want to come here? and why do they seek to do so illegally?

the answers to these questions are out there. This is why I suggested you do some research. You may also find that it is perfectly legal to arrive in a place and ask for Asylum. You may also stumble upon the reasons why the notion of claiming asylum in a first or previous country is a bad and unworkable idea - to be fair you probably don't have to research this just have a think about the issue.

Or I am I to assume that you are in favour of totally unregulated immigration. Good luck with selling that as a policy.

If you don't mind me saying this is a weird assumption to make. there are many different levels of immigration and more specifically asylum seeker policy (important to distinguish between the two as this is what we are talking about) between 'don't let anyone in' and 'let everyone in'. What is concerning about the current debate is that the extreme polar ends of this discussion should be equally difficult to sell as policy, with the answer surely being somewhere in the middle. However the UK seems to be accepting the narrative close to 'don't let anyone in' as acceptable. It has served the tories and their press well over the last 13 years but now they really have no-where to go. Leaving the country with a policy that no one likes.

Obviously you must subscribe to the sort of rubbish that Lineker tweets whereas contrary to what he says the Uk has the second largest immigration in Europe after Germany

Yeah, I do broadly agree with Lineker, although not about crisps. I would also add that my real concern about this is around free speech and the state broadcaster censoring people's opinions.

Again the distinction between refugees/asylum seekers and immigrants is important here and I would urge you look up the stats for how many the UK take in comparison to other countries https://swvg-refugees.org.uk/about-asylum/asylum-facts/uk-compare-countries/

I apologies for my 'my friend' turn of phrase, my intention was to take away a little intensity from my reply. You are quite right though, I don't know if we have met.

 

[Wozza]

No presenters or pundits on MOTD tomorrow, I guess that means more football, why’s not to like? I don’t need to have games explained to me either. No “what has happened at “insert BIG club”

If you don't like the MOTD format there are already numerous other ways to see highlights on a Saturday these days, inc official goal clips on YouTube, and numerous Sky highlights shows running all evening/night.

Reality is, millions tune in to watch MOTD for an overview of the day's play, and to find how their team is represented (or misrepresented ) to millions of other fans.

Love it or hate it, it's pretty compelling.

Shame the Tory BBC have killed it this week. Hope it's back soon.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Lineker has as much right to express his opinions, political or otherwise, as everyone else.

If you agree with him, fine. If you disagree, also fine.

Censoring somebody does not remove or solve the issue.

From the BBC website - https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guid...y the Gestapo and sent to concentration camps.

 

[Eric the meek]

It seems like the whole world is talking about this.

Gary, you really screwed up here.

Or did you?

 

[Is it PotG?]

It seems like the whole world is talking about this.

Gary, you really screwed up here.

Or did you?

So long as he makes publicity out of it, who cares?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I think @TB agreed with me that this policy after legal challenges won’t actually occur by Dec 2024. I’m calmly relaxed that one way or another it’s screwed in that we won’t see all parts in place.

Lineker isn’t a bad person at all. But I think his analogy in the big picture of what’s happened and is happening in the modern world (Putin, Uyghurs) is ill informed and nonsense.

I do think GL knows a bit more about refugees than most because he has had them living in his house. He’s listened to their stories, their fears, and hopes.

I’m glad that we agree on the legislation but this government does like to stoke up divisions in all directions. Old v young, hard working tax payers v benefit scroungers, food banks do gooders, strikes, NHS, teachers etc etc.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

No presenters or pundits will feature on Saturday's MOTD - BBC​

No presenters or pundits will feature on Saturday's Match of the Day programme, a BBC spokesperson says.
Saturday's Match of the Day programme will "focus on match action without studio presentation or punditry", they say.

Presumably they can't find anyone to take over? I wonder why?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

So long as he makes publicity out of it, who cares?

With 31 posts on this thread already, you do.

 

[Eric the meek]

So long as he makes publicity out of it, who cares?

Are you still plugging the 'Lineacre' theme, or have you given up yet?
I would keep on ploughing away. You'll bag a response at some point.

 

[BadFish]

No presenters or pundits will feature on Saturday's MOTD - BBC​

No presenters or pundits will feature on Saturday's Match of the Day programme, a BBC spokesperson says.
Saturday's Match of the Day programme will "focus on match action without studio presentation or punditry", they say.

Presumably they can't find anyone to take over? I wonder why?

Brilliant, my faith in humanity has been restored (to its fairly low levels).