[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".

 

[Weststander]

Yeah fair enough don‘t disagree, I don’t think he’ll be PM in 2025 In my gut, but there’s always the horrendous fear of what could be, and this is the road we could head down.

It’s desperation for sure but will it pay off that’s the question.

We need Labour to have some clear major policies at some stage, so far they’ve ridden on the back of Lockdowns/hit to ecomony, Putin’s effect on gas prices, food supply and inflation, Johnson/Truss chaos. Standing still so shooting up the polls.

Please, crystal clear things they intend to deal with immediately - the housing crisis, migration, getting people back to work, mental health.

 

[BadFish]

I've seen that article before, and the point was it doesn't give any numbers. The number of asylum seekers whose cases had been processed was tiny, single figure percentage of the total applicants, from memory.

But it stands to reason anyway. Anyone who at present is so desperate to get to UK that they will leave France in a ropey old dinghy, will do so however many legal ways into the country there are - if they aren't successful by the legal means. And unless we have 100% permission, come one come all, all applications are approved, then there will still be people who come by small boat because they can't get here any other way.

That article is 2 days old but okay. I was using it to reference my figure of 90%

More than 90% of people who have arrived in the UK by boat since 2018 claimed asylum, and most have had their asylum claims granted.

Sorry but your second paragraph is just nonsense. It doesn't even make sense with itself.

It totally doesn't stand to reason. If as I suggested there are other mechanisms (let's not forget that coming by boat and claiming asylum is perfectly legal) to gain entry to the UK that do not put your family in danger and involve crossing the channel in a dingy. The examples I gave are decent processes from refugee camps and a place in France to claim asylum. Then people are going to choose those ways. Who wouldn't?

Your last sentence really sums it up, people get in boats with people smugglers because they can get to the UK any other way. The answer to stopping (or at least castly slowing them if we need to get into semantics) the boats and the people smugglers is to open up those other ways. It is really that simple, no?

If we are really going to scrap around the semantics then perhaps a few boats would still make the journey (I cannot fathom why though) but the number would be far far far less than now and totally manageable.

The 100% permission and all applications approved notion is another total red herring, only people at the other extreme are suggesting that. It is not workable.

Out of interest what % of the asylum seeker going to the UK by boat to you think are bogus?

 

[Weststander]

I don't see a pathway either, but I can see challenges to the laws and conventions put in place to try and prevent that from ever being a possibility. If those safe guards are removed, then we are one big step closer to it becoming possible.

I truly think they’ll run out of time and Labour with a decent majority (depends if they’re still loathed in Scotland) will undo any damage to safeguards.

 

[Mancgull]

Isn't lineker a consultant working for the BBC in the same way as Deborah Meadon or Alan Sugar? If so then there's the issue of consistency with this group of people making personal political views on Social Media, whatever the content of them.
For me this is about freedom of speech, not what was said in itself.

 

[ShandyH]

I appreciate he has a strong opinion on this but he knows the rules. He’s a bright guy so what’s incredibly frustrating is him providing ammunition for the dismantling of the BBC by being glibly gregarious on a matter best dealt with by the BBC’s excellent news programmes.

The BBC’s relatively impartial view is miles beyond our US counterparts. Fox is a disgrace. Yet his repeated vacillation on politics is grating. It also helps to serve up the BBC for dismantling by the very elements he points to.

It’s not very f***ing clever.

 

[rogersix]

Perhaps, and maybe he should be chastised for using, abusing and marshalling the evils of history’s most abhorrent regime to score political points? It depends where you sit on the spectrum I suppose, but anyone equating The Tories to the Nazi Party loses the argument in my opinion. It’s simply not creditable. Maybe he didn’t do history at school, because he was making it in football. Can’t be good at everything though, evidently modern history’s not his strongest suit.

he was on about the language, still

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

But it stands to reason anyway. Anyone who at present is so desperate to get to UK that they will leave France in a ropey old dinghy, will do so however many legal ways into the country there are - if they aren't successful by the legal means. And unless we have 100% permission, come one come all, all applications are approved, then there will still be people who come by small boat because they can't get here any other way.

I’ve read this a few times now and still don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

 

[dsr-burnley]

That article is 2 days old but okay. I was using it to reference my figure of 90%

More than 90% of people who have arrived in the UK by boat since 2018 claimed asylum, and most have had their asylum claims granted.

Sorry but your second paragraph is just nonsense. It doesn't even make sense with itself.

It totally doesn't stand to reason. If as I suggested there are other mechanisms (let's not forget that coming by boat and claiming asylum is perfectly legal) to gain entry to the UK that do not put your family in danger and involve crossing the channel in a dingy. The examples I gave are decent processes from refugee camps and a place in France to claim asylum. Then people are going to choose those ways. Who wouldn't?

Your last sentence really sums it up, people get in boats with people smugglers because they can get to the UK any other way. The answer to stopping (or at least castly slowing them if we need to get into semantics) the boats and the people smugglers is to open up those other ways. It is really that simple, no?

If we are really going to scrap around the semantics then perhaps a few boats would still make the journey (I cannot fathom why though) but the number would be far far far less than now and totally manageable.

The 100% permission and all applications approved notion is another total red herring, only people at the other extreme are suggesting that. It is not workable.

Out of interest what is our preferred method of dealing with Asylum Seekers?

Sorry about the article date error. I have seen a very similar article several months ago.

The point of the second paragraph is that some people are coming to the UK in small boats because (however it works) they cannot get here an easier way. The only way to stop them coming is to give them an easier way - if you don't give them that easier way, they will still come by boat.

If you say to a small boat asylum seeker that there is an easier way, go to a refugee camp and apply there - bearing in mind refugee camps are pretty awful places - then he will only go there if he is all but certain of being accepted. If any of the desperate ones are rejected, then they will still come by boat.

 

[jackalbion]

Perhaps, and maybe he should be chastised for using, abusing and marshalling the evils of history’s most abhorrent regime to score political points? It depends where you sit on the spectrum I suppose, but anyone equating The Tories to the Nazi Party loses the argument in my opinion. It’s simply not creditable. Maybe he didn’t do history at school, because he was making it in football. Can’t be good at everything though, evidently modern history’s not his strongest suit.

I dunno I wouldn’t have argued against the comparison until the tweet about modern slavery legislation, that’s a murky path that I didnt think they‘d go down, but this is probably the worst thing they’ve said they are going to do. I mean there’s a current MP who said he’d like to send people who break laws to camps and make them work on the land (Lee Anderson), and he’s Vice Chair of the Party now, they’ve flirted with fascism, they need to distance themselves or the comparisons won’t be comparisons anymore.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I’ve read this a few times now and still don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

Imagine it like a football match. Brighton are playing for the League Title, the ground is full, and a thousand people are trying to climb the wall to get in.

The police are worried that they wil impale themselves on the fence, so they say they will allow an extra 250 people to come in if they apply in the proper manner at the main gate. They all apply, and 250 get in. Does this stop the other 750 from trying to climb the wall? No. The only way to stop them trying to climb the wall is to let them all in.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I dunno I wouldn’t have argued against the comparison until the tweet about modern slavery legislation, that’s a murky path that I didnt think they‘d go down, but this is probably the worst thing they’ve said they are going to do. I mean there’s a current MP who said he’d like to send people who break laws to camps and make them work on the land (Lee Anderson), and he’s Vice Chair of the Party now, they’ve flirted with fascism, they need to distance themselves or the comparisons won’t be comparisons anymore.

The idea of prisoners having to work, isn't new. I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong, just that it's been going on as long as prisons have been in use.

 

[jackalbion]

I appreciate he has a strong opinion on this but he knows the rules. He’s a bright guy so what’s incredibly frustrating is him providing ammunition for the dismantling of the BBC by being glibly gregarious on a matter best dealt with by the BBC’s excellent news programmes.

The BBC’s relatively impartial view is miles beyond our US counterparts. Fox is a disgrace. Yet his repeated vacillation on politics is grating. It also helps to serve up the BBC for dismantling by the very elements he points to.

It’s not very f***ing clever.

The BBC is bias, they removed a documentary by national treasure and all round good guy, David Attenborough, because they were worried about Right Wing backlash and had pressure from right wing MPs. Let’s not forget the Tories appoint the head of the BBC who is a former head of communications for the Tory party. It’s completely hypocritical to criticise Lineker alone.

 

[Weststander]

Isn't lineker a consultant working for the BBC in the same way as Deborah Meadon or Alan Sugar? If so then there's the issue of consistency with this group of people making personal political views on Social Media, whatever the content of them.
For me this is about freedom of speech, not what was said in itself.

Disputed by HMRC in an ongoing case, Lineker claims that by billing through his limited company, the arrangements do not have the substance of really being employment.

 

[Bozza]

Amazing that a thread has reached 700 posts before I opened it.

Anyone able to give me a summary of what I've missed? Thanks.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Imagine it like a football match. Brighton are playing for the League Title, the ground is full, and a thousand people are trying to climb the wall to get in.

The police are worried that they wil impale themselves on the fence, so they say they will allow an extra 250 people to come in if they apply in the proper manner at the main gate. They all apply, and 250 get in. Does this stop the other 750 from trying to climb the wall? No. The only way to stop them trying to climb the wall is to let them all in.

If the ground is full, where will the 250 sit?

 

[Weststander]

The BBC is bias, they removed a documentary by national treasure and all round good guy, David Attenborough, because they were worried about Right Wing backlash and had pressure from right wing MPs. Let’s not forget the Tories appoint the head of the BBC who is a former head of communications for the Tory party. It’s completely hypocritical to criticise Lineker alone.

Interesting, I didn’t know about that. Will read up about it tomorrow.

 

[jackalbion]

The idea of prisoners having to work, isn't new. I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong, just that it's been going on as long as prisons have been in use.

Modern Slavery legislation isn’t protecting prisoners though, it’s protecting ordinary people, and refusing to act on law breaking as the victim is undocumented is completely discriminatory. Especially if those people have a right to claim asylum here.

 

[BadFish]

Sorry about the article date error. I have seen a very similar article several months ago.

The point of the second paragraph is that some people are coming to the UK in small boats because (however it works) they cannot get here an easier way. The only way to stop them coming is to give them an easier way - if you don't give them that easier way, they will still come by boat.

If you say to a small boat asylum seeker that there is an easier way, go to a refugee camp and apply there - bearing in mind refugee camps are pretty awful places - then he will only go there if he is all but certain of being accepted. If any of the desperate ones are rejected, then they will still come by boat.

Well, I think that we agree on the first point. The first step for any government is to open up the proper mechanisms for people to gain refugee status. A horrendous move by the Tories to close these off.

However, I don't agree that just because someone is desperate enough to come by boat (is the risk of death not worse than a refugee camp? - arguable at least) then then must be an economic migrant. the stats (90%) simply do not indicate this.

I am really interested to know how many asylum seekers coming by boat you think are bogus? This seems to be the crux of the discussion.

I also ask if you disagree that the best way to see if they are bogus is to process their claim?

 

[rogersix]

I truly think they’ll run out of time and Labour with a decent majority (depends if they’re still loathed in Scotland) will undo any damage to safeguards.

if the tories had a 10 point lead, would you consider bravaman to be having a bit of fun?

 

[BadFish]

Amazing that a thread has reached 700 posts before I opened it.

Anyone able to give me a summary of what I've missed? Thanks.

We all agree and are getting on beautifully.

Edit: Actually to be fair, we are getting on okay.