[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".

 

[Guinness Boy]

Braverman's next move to vilify these poor people. What a f***ing rotter!

I mean is anyone buying this shit? (The lie not the drugs) What self respecting drug dealer would use those boats and those people to move product? Unsafe, unreliable and in the full view of the coastguard, the media and probably Nigel Farage with his binoculars.

I think what she's getting at is that some immigrants are being recruited by County Lines drug gangs and some of these drug gangs are Albanian gangs (Albanians having come here illegally in some instances, especially this year). What she's not saying is that anyone arriving here who is young, perhaps doesn't have family and is not allowed to work is absolutely ripe to be picked off by these gangs. They thrive on recruiting young, vulnerable people of all nationalities and descriptions, including many children born here. But, by association, and by what she leaves out, she is inferring all immigrants are drug dealers.

It's exactly the same as 30p Lee. Just before this policy came out he asked a question of Sir Keir as to whether he'd deport "foreign rapists and murders". Then, along comes this policy immediately after, that basically says all immigrants arriving on boats will be deported, thus creating a snidey association in the brains of the hard of thinking. For the record, Lee wouldn't deport them either. He's pro-hanging and would therefore kill them.

 

[BadFish]

I think what she's getting at is that some immigrants are being recruited by County Lines drug gangs and some of these drug gangs are Albanian gangs (Albanians having come here illegally in some instances, especially this year). What she's not saying is that anyone arriving here who is young, perhaps doesn't have family and is not allowed to work is absolutely ripe to be picked off by these gangs. They thrive on recruiting young, vulnerable people of all nationalities and descriptions, including many children born here. But, by association, and by what she leaves out, she is inferring all immigrants are drug dealers.

It's exactly the same as 30p Lee. Just before this policy came out he asked a question of Sir Keir as to whether he'd deport "foreign rapists and murders". Then, along comes this policy immediately after, that basically says all immigrants arriving on boats will be deported, thus creating a snidey association in the brains of the hard of thinking. For the record, Lee wouldn't deport them either. He's pro-hanging and would therefore kill them.

Ah thank you for clearing up my knee jerk reaction. Makes much more sense.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Not really though is it? No mention of being illegal or criminals. No mention of 100k (or billions) potentially coming. No mention of things like 'invasion' which has been consistently used by those on the right.
How hard is to understand that the language the right in this country uses is dehumanising, sensationalist, fear mongering...? And how hard is it to accept that othering, scapegoating, dehumanising etc was one of the central and earliest tactics used by the Nazi party?
Why are people even arguing about this?

That's because I didn't post the whole article.

Obama didn't build cages to lock people in because they viewed them as being legal and not committing a crime based on their laws.

All of the things you described are not exclusive to "the right".

You could link that kind of language to Pol Pot and he was a raving looney leftist.

But why link it to anything that far back when you can link it to more modern examples?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

"Swarm", "invasion" etc etc.

A 'shameful' Suella Braverman video's trending - and the Home Office want it deleted

Suella Braverman, the home secretary who resigned from Liz Truss’ government over breaching the ministerial code before being all too happy to return to the position under Rishi Sunak’s government six days later, is back with another PR disaster.The Conservative MP for Fareham (near Portsmouth)...

www.indy100.com

So the kind of language that can be attributed to countless other regimes and Governments in history, many of whom were not right leaning.

You can attribute it to poor policy but trying to attribute language to that of a white supremacist regime is f***ing stupid when you have a person of Indian heritage with a Jewish deputy leading the nation.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

Braverman's next move to vilify these poor people. What a f***ing rotter!

I mean is anyone buying this shit? (The lie not the drugs) What self respecting drug dealer would use those boats and those people to move product? Unsafe, unreliable and in the full view of the coastguard, the media and probably Nigel Farage with his binoculars.

I feel revolted that she is my MP. Despicable ****.

 

[The Fits]

That's because I didn't post the whole article.

Obama didn't build cages to lock people in because they viewed them as being legal and not committing a crime based on their laws.

All of the things you described are not exclusive to "the right".

You could link that kind of language to Pol Pot and he was a raving looney leftist.

But why link it to anything that far back when you can link it to more modern examples?

Because of all the atrocities of the 20th Century the Holocaust is the one most people know about. Because things like the Human Rights Act and most of our rules about refugees were in direct response to WW2.
And I've not said it's an exclusive right wing thing. But it's clearly a trend of the modern British right and this is what we are talking about.
Most importantly though, GL can say what he wants and make whatever comparison he wants. This is the crux of the matter. People aren't genuinely offended by what he's said. They're frightened about the impact someone with 7 million followers might have in illuminating how disgraceful our countries politics has got.

 

[Klaas]

The language used is similar to other modern Governments.

"Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas recently confirmed that any migrants intercepted by the US Coast Guard off US shores will not be allowed to enter the country — they will be turned back or, if they express fear of returning to their home countries, repatriated to a third country."

“The time is never right to attempt migration by sea,” Mayorkas said in a press conference earlier this month. “To those who risk their lives doing so, this risk is not worth taking. Allow me to be clear: If you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States.”


Exactly why would anyone decide to go full Godwin and choose the Nazis over something like the above?

The quotes you yourself provided sound NOTHING like the language to which Lineker was referring. Other than that, excellent whataboutery, well done.

 

[Berty23]

The language used is similar to other modern Governments.

"Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas recently confirmed that any migrants intercepted by the US Coast Guard off US shores will not be allowed to enter the country — they will be turned back or, if they express fear of returning to their home countries, repatriated to a third country."

“The time is never right to attempt migration by sea,” Mayorkas said in a press conference earlier this month. “To those who risk their lives doing so, this risk is not worth taking. Allow me to be clear: If you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States.”


Exactly why would anyone decide to go full Godwin and choose the Nazis over something like the above?

It is not just that policy though. It is the words used to dehumanise them. That is the big difference.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Because of all the atrocities of the 20th Century the Holocaust is the one most people know about. Because things like the Human Rights Act and most of our rules about refugees were in direct response to WW2.
And I've not said it's an exclusive right wing thing. But it's clearly a trend of the modern British right and this is what we are talking about.
Most importantly though, GL can say what he wants and make whatever comparison he wants. This is the crux of the matter. People aren't genuinely offended by what he's said. They're frightened about the impact someone with 7 million followers might have in illuminating how disgraceful our countries politics has got.

I disagree.

Most people under 40 probably know stuff all about WW2.

As soon as you go to the Nazi route you have no where else to go in a discussion. It's a piss weak cowardly route because you're calling them Nazis without actually saying it.

I think all he highlighted was Godwin's Law and made a woeful comparison in the end.

I agree he should be able to say whatever he likes, but if you go the Nazi route you ultimately look like you should be reading history books more than spending time on twitter.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

I feel revolted that she is my MP. Despicable ****.

Did you vote for her last time round? aka at the last General Election.

If yes, will you be voting for her again next time round?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

The quotes you yourself provided sound NOTHING like the language to which Lineker was referring. Other than that, excellent whataboutery, well done.

Reuters said swarm. It's almost like its a word journalists might use in such situations too.

"SAN LUIS, Ariz (Reuters) - Daily, U.S. Border Patrol agents in this Arizona town faced groups of up to 200 illegal immigrants who would swarm across the border from Mexico, sprinting past the agents to a new life in the United States."


The quotes provided prove modern day policies which are far more comparable can be used to highlight bad policy rather than going full gimp and heading straight for the Nazi angle.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

Did you vote for her last time round? aka at the last General Election.

If yes, will you be voting for her again next time round?

No I did not and certainly won’t!

I voted Tory once when I was a stupid, selfish (and probably drunk) 19 year old. Never again.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I agree he should be able to say whatever he likes, but if you go the Nazi route you ultimately look like you should be reading history books more than spending time on twitter.

 

[Stato]

I have still not seen anyone make a proper argument that the language used is not similar to to that in 1930s Germany.

It wasn't German.

Joking aside, what Lineker said is less important than that he should have a right to say it. However, there has been a pretence from those ready to be outraged that saying 'language like' means the holocaust. That is a huge leap, but one that his choice of language allowed critics to make. The actual point was that the language used by this government is similar to the language used by a government that was scapegoating 'others' to explain economic problems. It was a clumsy choice of language because it allowed opponents to apply Godwin's Law and claim a tacit implication that this British government would follow the same path of continually increasing persecution that led to the horrific consequences of the early 40s.

It would have been more accurate to indicate that, there is a history of, generally, but not uniquely, right wing governments, finding a minority group to blame for their own failings. It is never fair, it is never right, and it never ends well. Lineker used the most easily apparent example. He could have instead referenced Edward I's introduction of anti-semetic laws during the early thirteenth century, or more recently, Trump's persecution of South and Central American migrants, or Mao's persecution of 'intellectuals' in China, or events in the Balkans during the 90s, or Modi's anti-muslim dog whistling in India, or Bolsanaro's treatment of indigenous people in Brazil, etc. etc. etc. There are endless examples from all points in history, but as he is a football presenter, not a historian or political commentator, he can perhaps be forgiven for going route one and looking for the most obvious example of othering and scapegoating. It makes his argument easier to contest, as the reference allows for accusations of over-egging and allows opponents to concentrate on the example and not respond to the actual point.

The problem was that his opponents were not satisfied that the wording of his tweet allowed them to dismiss his, more difficult to respond to, critique and instead respond in outrage to his similie, but because of their previous annoyance with him, wanted to pursue an attack based upon his right to have any opinion in the first place. He over-egged, they over-reached, the BBC over-reacted. Let's hope we're now right to think it's all over.

 

[Klaas]

Reuters said swarm. It's almost like its a word journalists might use in such situations too.

"SAN LUIS, Ariz (Reuters) - Daily, U.S. Border Patrol agents in this Arizona town faced groups of up to 200 illegal immigrants who would swarm across the border from Mexico, sprinting past the agents to a new life in the United States."


The quotes provided prove modern day policies which are far more comparable can be used to highlight bad policy rather than going full gimp and heading straight for the Nazi angle.

Ah, so now it's Reuters

This is going well

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Not in 2023.

Not when you're talking about a democratically elected Government that will most likely be voted out next election.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Ah, so now it's Reuters

This is going well

Going better than GL's shit take.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Not in 2023.

Not when you're talking about a democratically elected Government that will most likely be voted out next election.

In 1933 the Nazi party were democratically elected.

 

[Klaas]

Going better than GL's shit take.

I know you think you've got a hot take that manages to shoe horn Obama into the mix, but working backwards, searching for quotes that literally don't back up your 'point', and resorting to 'Reuters used the same word, once!', isn't really cutting it.

 

[Audax]

I agree he should be able to say whatever he likes, but if you go the Nazi route you ultimately look like you should be reading history books more than spending time on twitter.

I disagree. Some of the language used in British politics recently is nearly word-for-word the same language used in 1930's Germany. Not just "similar", but so close that you could be forgiven for thinking that it was plagiarised directly from the translated German.

And it's not just language. It's policy, as well. I never thought I'd find myself living in a country where members of the party that is in government are openly talking up things like leaving the ECHR, repealing the UK Human Rights Act, and so lacking in the ability to sense-check their own language that the Prime Minister no less sends out a tweet that includes the line "denied access to the UK's modern slavery system" and even after the choice of language has been pointed out to be ludicrous the tweet remains in place a week later. Edit to add: and I even forgot to mention implementing voter-suppression tactics.

The law that has triggered all of this, and the language used by some in the UK government, is the most extreme I've seen anywhere in a very, very long time. The comparison to 1930's Germany is a fair one, and I think deliberately chosen as being far more likely to resonate and incite debate in the UK than some of the other more recent examples you cite - many of whom will only have regional awareness*, not global.

This isn't something that has happened over night. Let's not forget some elements of the Leave campaign were lifted right out of the 1930's Germany political playbook as well. This has been growing for some time, and it's about time it was brought out into the open, confronted, and eliminated from British politics before it goes any further.



* Edit: to borrow from marketing, I am talking here about "unprompted awareness". If you were to ask 100 random British people to name a political party / time period where "persecution of a minority" was used as a political gambit, I am betting the vast, vast majority would identify 1930's Germany, Hitler, Nazi party, or WW2. A minority might identify others (Trump, given recency, or the current Chinese regime given their persecution of minorities keeps hitting the news). Very few would mention the likes of Pol Pot.