[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".

 

[Bakero]

 

[GT49er]

So you just popped into the thread to share your disapproval of it and let us all know that you are continuing to ignore it.

Thanks for that.

Gotta love the social media age.

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.

 

[The Clamp]

 

[GT49er]

There is nothing in this thread which warrants it being moved to the Bear Pit.

Not yet. Give it time.

And it won't be mssed.

 

[The Clamp]

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.

You are aware it’s not obligatory to partake in any of the threads on here?

Anyway, I can see you’re here to try and drag this into the pit. Where you would still no doubt be involved. So I’ll take your posts as commentary rather than participatory. And ignore them.

 

[BadFish]

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.

You do yourself a disservice GT. When it comes to outrage and virtue signalling your post stands head and shoulders above the others on this thread.

"I am ignoring this thread but I want it sent to the bear pit!!" Shades of Mary Whitehouse right there mate.

Anyway I will let you get back to the sterling job of ignoring this thread you have mostly done

 

[BadFish]

There is nothing in this thread which warrants it being moved to the Bear Pit. No insults, no ad hominem attacks, or even trolling.
Yes it makes for uncomfortable reading, but this government’s actions make for uncomfortable living right now.
Five years ago the Tories tried to deliberately change the rules on Caribbean people living here, and deported people who had never lived in Jamaica or other islands nearby.
It is called the Windrush scandal. Amber Rudd was forced to resign over it, but she wasn’t the instigator. Theresa May introduced the Hostile Environment but even she abstained from the vote last night.

If you don’t want to know what’s going on in this country, then ignore it, turn a blind eye, but don’t complain when some of us want to return to sanity.

It has been a very interesting and most informative thread carried out in real time. The fact is it about something that many people are interested in and may be an important turning point in UK politics adds to the interest.

I think that 90% of the interactions have been civil and reasonable, a well carried out discussion in my view. And all this despite a few antagonist and overly argumentative posts (some from me and for those I apologise)

Why on earth someone feels the need to jump on a thread to express their indignation about its existence is beyond me (and beyond snowflakey IMHO). Or is this the way things work in the modern era? Should I be jumping on the Wordle thread and expressing my indignation because i have stopped playing it and therefore so should everyone else??

 

[The Clamp]

I recall a comedian comparing people that rail against things they see on the internet that don’t affect them at all and that they don’t like, as somebody seeing an advert on a notice board for guitar lessons, ringing the number and shouting down the phone “BUT I DON’T WANT f***ing GUITAR LESSONS”!!!!

 

[Louis MacNeice]

This was a genuine democratic election although I concede that his thugs were battling communist thugs.

Wow just wow!

If you think you can run a genuinely democratic election with 50,000 SS and SA armed paramilitaries operating in the Prussian part of Germany alone, then I will leave you to your dangerous (but perhaps not lazy) imaginings.

Oh and less of the young, I'll be 61 next birthday.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. you might prefer the Anne Frank Foundation's characterisation of the election...look it up.

 

[GT49er]

You do yourself a disservice GT. When it comes to outrage and virtue signalling your post stands head and shoulders above the others on this thread.

"I am ignoring this thread but I want it sent to the bear pit!!" Shades of Mary Whitehouse right there mate.

Anyway I will let you get back to the sterling job of ignoring this thread you have mostly done

Oh dear. The Mary Whitehouse gambit. Desperate!

 

[BadFish]

I recall a comedian comparing people that rail against things they see on the internet that don’t affect them at all and that they don’t like, as somebody seeing an advert on a notice board for guitar lessons, ringing the number and shouting down the phone “BUT I DON’T WANT f***ing GUITAR LESSONS”!!!!

Yes I have seen that too, very funny and spot on. Of course it is now going to annoy me until i remember who it was.

Edit - Ricky Gervais

 

[BadFish]

Wow just wow!

If you think you can run a genuinely democratic election with 50,000 SS and SA armed paramilitaries operating in the Prussian part of Germany alone, then I will leave you to your dangerous (but perhaps not lazy) imaginings.

Oh and less of the young, I'll be 61 next birthday.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. you might prefer the Anne Frank Foundation's characterisation of the election...look it up.

I don't know that much detail about what you are discussing here but it strikes me as about semantics as much as anything else. ON the one side you are decrying those elections as undemocratic, and you make excellent points about this and it is hard to disagree.

The other side of the argument seems to be saying that Hitler used the mechanism of democracy to gain power - even if the evidence suggests that these were bastasrdised to the exend that allowed him to do it.

The nuance of this discussion isn't about the actions of the Nazis at this time more about the nature of democracy. The central question is really should the mechanism of democracy still be considered democratic if it is manipulated and bastadised for someone's own gain.

Maybe the answer is that the mechanism does still remain but it becomes undemocratic. From where i am sitting both sides of the argument are compelling (FWIW neither are 'dangerous')

 

[The Clamp]

Oh dear. The Mary Whitehouse gambit. Desperate!

You’re more likely to get yourself banned form the thread than it go to the pit.

But then that wouldn’t fuss you, you’re ignoring the thread

 

[Hugo Rune]

Wow just wow!

If you think you can run a genuinely democratic election with 50,000 SS and SA armed paramilitaries operating in the Prussian part of Germany alone, then I will leave you to your dangerous (but perhaps not lazy) imaginings.

Oh and less of the young, I'll be 61 next birthday.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. you might prefer the Anne Frank Foundation's characterisation of the election...look it up.

And you look this lot up:

Roter Frontkämpferbund - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

These were the people the SS were concerned with.

Again, dangerous and lazy naive historic relativity from yourself. For the time, these elections were seen as democratic. Any historian will tell you that.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

And you look this lot up:

Roter Frontkämpferbund - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Firstly, if you think the SS and the SA were only concerned with the Red Front, then you must be wilfully ignoring their attacks on Jews, trade unionists, gays, social democrats...I could go on, but I hope you get the point.

Secondly, the existence of the Red Front and other militant anti-Nazi organisations doesn't prove the democratic nature of the parliamentary elections. Rather it is evidence of the impossibility of such democratic parliamentary elections.

The Trump slur is just as silly as your earlier attempt at ageism. If you want a real insight into how Hitler and the Nazi party gained power, go and have a look at Heartfield's 'Millions stand behind us' poster.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I don't know that much detail about what you are discussing here but it strikes me as about semantics as much as anything else. ON the one side you are decrying those elections as undemocratic, and you make excellent points about this and it is hard to disagree.

This is why I referenced the Anne Frank Foundation, which describes the election as legal.

Why I have used the word dangerous is because describing the Nazi's establishment of a government in early 1933 as democratic risks simultaneously legitimising Nazism and demonising the German electorate; both of which are obviously dangerous and just plain wrong.

Time for bed - Louis MacNeice

 

[Klaas]

Still, I can just carry on ignoring this thread, as I have been doing for the last couple of days anyway.

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

Gold.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Firstly, if you think the SS and the SA were only concerned with the Red Front, then you must be wilfully ignoring their attacks on Jews, trade unionists, gays, social democrats...I could go on, but I hope you get the point.

Secondly, the existence of the Red Front and other militant anti-Nazi organisations doesn't prove the democratic nature of the parliamentary elections. Rather it is evidence of the impossibility of such democratic parliamentary elections.

The Trump slur is just as silly as your earlier attempt at ageism. If you want a real insight into how Hitler and the Nazi party gained power, go and have a look at Heartfield's 'Millions stand behind us' poster.

Louis MacNeice

I know how they gained power.

They took it after the democratic door was left ajar. Millions of Germans voted for them. That is why Hitler became Chancellor and took the Country.

I know who the SA and SS were always concerned with, it was Jews. It was the world Jewish conspiracy. For them, ‘lefties’ ‘gays’ or whoever their enemies where were Jews.

However, their focus in the 20’s and early 30’s was fighting against Red Front, I’m not sure they bothered with them again once they’d banned them in ‘33.

But the undeniable facts are that Hitler convinced millions and millions of Germans to willingly vote for him in the early ‘30s until he banned other political parties and elections became meaningless. Whilst there was clearly intimidation in the earlier elections, this was not the main reason he got the votes, he convinced the German people that he had the answers and they believed him. He used nationalism, patriotism, militarism and all the techniques of the right but mostly, language and propaganda.

Oh, and I don’t understand the alleged ageism slurs.

 

[Hugo Rune]

This is why I referenced the Anne Frank Foundation, which describes the election as legal.

Why I have used the word dangerous is because describing the Nazi's establishment of a government in early 1933 as democratic risks simultaneously legitimising Nazism and demonising the German electorate; both of which are obviously dangerous and just plain wrong.

Time for bed - Louis MacNeice

And there is the misunderstanding. I was talking about the 1932 elections.

Get some rest. Big day tomorrow.

 

[BadFish]

This is why I referenced the Anne Frank Foundation, which describes the election as legal.

Why I have used the word dangerous is because describing the Nazi's establishment of a government in early 1933 as democratic risks simultaneously legitimising Nazism and demonising the German electorate; both of which are obviously dangerous and just plain wrong.

Time for bed - Louis MacNeice

I don't think it risks either of these. Well among anyone who can appreciate the nuance of events.

If you consider this dangerous though wouldn't you also consider the denial of a democratic election dangerous on the grounds that we may ignore the possibility of an extremist government gaining power by legitimate means and then seizing a dictatorship power. As arguably happened in 1933 (depending on your definition of the events).

Surely the least dangerous way to think about the situation would be to consider it's nuance and all of the influences on that election based on it merits.

Again I argue that you are discussion semantics, and possibly the changing definition of the word democratic. You yourself seem to accept that at the time some considered the election democratic so surely to dismiss the notion entirely is somewhat disingenuous.

Anyway I am out of my depth historically so I will go back to being an interested observer of this discussion.