[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".

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

In 1933 the Nazi party were democratically elected.

The Nazis lost seats in 1932 elections which were the last relatively fair and free elections.

The 1933 elections saw high levels of violence and massive voter suppression that lead to Hitler gaining power. Not sure that's democratically elected when the elections are impacted by those levels of corruption.

 

[Littlemo]

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.

I find it interesting that so many people use the idea of talking about the Nazi’s as a way of shutting down discussion.

They say that if you forget history you are doomed to repeat it. What about if you forbid speaking about it then are you trying to forget about it?

It’s far, far from inevitable that rhetoric like this ends up being like Nazi Germany and in mass murder. Yet I don’t see it as being helpful to be outraged when people do compare similarities, the language being used IS like 1930’s Germany, why pretend it’s not? You can’t learn from history if you ignore it when it’s relevant.

I would like to think this government would never go the way of the Nazi’s but equally, I doubt anyone in 1930-40 era Germany elected their government thinking they would. They elected them because they built the Autobhans and infrastructure, they were always able to point to good reasons for their vote as well.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

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.

So you missed the bit where I also mentioned Bush? We're talking US policy. Too difficult for you to follow?

 

[Klaas]

So you missed the bit where I also mentioned Bush? We're talking US policy. Too difficult for you to follow?

Yes, you said the name Bush, have a pat on the head. WE're not talking US policy, YOU are, spectacularly missing the point of this thread and the actual content of Lineker's tweet.
But you carry on!

 

[Guinness Boy]

The Nazis lost seats in 1932 elections which were the last relatively fair and free elections.

The 1933 elections saw high levels of violence and massive voter suppression that lead to Hitler gaining power. Not sure that's democratically elected when the elections are impacted by those levels of corruption.

The NSDAP gained 123 seats in 1932.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I find it interesting that so many people use the idea of talking about the Nazi’s as a way of shutting down discussion.

They say that if you forget history you are doomed to repeat it. What about if you forbid speaking about it then are you trying to forget about it?

It’s far, far from inevitable that rhetoric like this ends up being like Nazi Germany and in mass murder. Yet I don’t see it as being helpful to be outraged when people do compare similarities, the language being used IS like 1930’s Germany, why pretend it’s not? You can’t learn from history if you ignore it when it’s relevant.

I would like to think this government would never go the way of the Nazi’s but equally, I doubt anyone in 1930-40 era Germany elected their government thinking they would. They elected them because they built the Autobhans and infrastructure, they were always able to point to good reasons for their vote as well.

Except it's not being used like 1930s Germany.

1930s Germany was not about immigration.

1930s Germany was about anger and resentment from being screwed over from WW1. It was about Lebensraum.

They wanted to push out, they had no concern with anything pushing inwardly.

If you turn up at the election booths and you start getting beat up and intimidated to vote a certain way then perhaps you can then reference their language and it will be a spot on comparison.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Going better than GL's shit take.

The only one with a shit take today is you.

Four days late but straight in with the usual whataboutery. No attempt whatsoever to understand the UK Government's policy and defend it (or not). No opinion whatsoever on how the BBC should have dealt with Lineker or whether the BBC is still impartial. Straight in with "whatabout Obama". Priceless.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Yes, you said the name Bush, have a pat on the head. WE're not talking US policy, YOU are, spectacularly missing the point of this thread and the actual content of Lineker's tweet.
But you carry on!

The bit where he referenced Germany of the 30s was utter bullshit though.

Like a clown though instead of making a modern day comparison he goes back to a time when he knows he can imply that a group is doing something similar to a very bad regime even though it's far removed from what was actually going on back then but people will swallow all that nonsense up anyway.

As I've said, he should be able to say it even if it was a piss weak comparison that is so far off the mark.

 

[Lever]

The bit where he referenced Germany of the 30s was utter bullshit though.

Like a clown though instead of making a modern day comparison he goes back to a time when he knows he can imply that a group is doing something similar to a very bad regime even though it's far removed from what was actually going on back then but people will swallow all that nonsense up anyway.

As I've said, he should be able to say it even if it was a piss weak comparison that is so far off the mark.

I just dipped into this thread again, so apologies if you have already explained..... but if you are agreeing with the majority that freedom of speech needs to be preserved (regardless of your support for the sentiments expressed), then surely that is all that is being debated! No need to say more!

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

The only one with a shit take today is you.

Four days late but straight in with the usual whataboutery. No attempt whatsoever to understand the UK Government's policy and defend it (or not). No opinion whatsoever on how the BBC should have dealt with Lineker or whether the BBC is still impartial. Straight in with "whatabout Obama". Priceless.

Thanks for your shit take.

I said he shouldn't have faced any kind of nonsense for saying what he did. Can't read? I'd think buy saying he should be able to say what he did implies anyone who said he shouldn't is in the wrong. Yes?


No attempt to understand the UK boat policy? I'll go with I understand it better than you probably.

I mean the UK policy is ripped off from the policy implemented by Australia. I've got a few decades better understanding of such policies than you do I'd say.

Liberal, Labor, they both run with it.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I just dipped into this thread again, so apologies if you have already explained..... but if you are agreeing with the majority that freedom of speech needs to be preserved (regardless of your support for the sentiments expressed), then surely that is all that is being debated! No need to say more!

So long as that applies to everything.

I'm not so sure that many of those in here defending his freedom of speech wouldn't have others locked up for having their freedom of speech.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

No attempt to understand the UK boat policy? I'll go with I understand it better than you probably.

 

[Guinness Boy]

So long as that applies to everything.

Even Tik tok?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Even Tik tok?

Well given they are under investigation by the EU for data harvesting they might not be available in many nations soon.

 

[Lever]

So long as that applies to everything.

I'm not so sure that many of those in here defending his freedom of speech wouldn't have others locked up for having their freedom of speech.

....based on?

I can't understand how the debate could morph into that if you just said 'I don't agree with GL but I defend his right to say what he said'.......

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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.

What's the mood like, locally, in Fareham, about her?

 

[Audax]

No attempt to understand the UK boat policy? I'll go with I understand it better than you probably.

I mean the UK policy is ripped off from the policy implemented by Australia. I've got a few decades better understanding of such policies than you do I'd say.

Liberal, Labor, they both run with it.

I'm also an Aussie, and while I've been in the UK a while I was in Australia long enough to also understand the Aussie laws quite well (and also recently updated myself on them).

The proposed UK law goes beyond anything that has been implemented in Australia. The Rwanda policy is modelled on Australian policy, but the latest proposed bill takes it further. It is inhumane, and the Home Secretary herself clearly thinks it's more likely to be illegal (under UK's international law and treaty obligations) than it is to be legal - but they're going to push it through anyway, using a mechanism that effectively prevents the UK judiciary from striking it down despite it being illegal.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

What's the mood like, locally, in Fareham, about her?

Probably like most people, those I tend to associate with are of a similar mindset so can’t stand her. As a rule though this is about as safe a blue seat as you can get unfortunately.

They are changing the constituency boundaries though so her future is a bit unclear. I read she may be parachuted into another safe seat if she looks at risk.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

In 1933 the Nazi party were democratically elected.

In March 1933 the Nazi party, after a huge campaign of mass intimidation, violence and propoganda (mobilising tens of thousands of SA and SS members), polled 43.9% of votes cast and and had to form a coalition government with the German National People's Party. It would seem that the word democratically is doing a hell of a lot of work in your post.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Guinness Boy]

In March 1933 the Nazi party, after a huge campaign of mass intimidation, violence and propoganda (mobilising tens of thousands of SA and SS members), polled 43.9% of votes cast and and had to form a coalition government with the German National People's Party. It would seem that the word democratically is doing a hell of a lot of work in your post.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

A democratic country is governed by representatives who are elected by the people.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/democratic#:~:text=Something%20that%20is%20democratic%20is,democratically%20adverb

What 1933 was NOT was free and fair. Every historian pretty much agrees on that. But at that specific time Germany was not a dictatorship.

And so, to return to Lineker's point, what we have now is the Government calling anyone who disagrees with them unpatriotic, legislating to ban protest and requiring voter ID that will remove voting rights from the most disadvantaged groups of people.