Gary Lineker

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

 

Just now, TheGunnShow said:

I'd say the Government/media did, and we're responding to that in microcosm.

Why would you presume that reaction here is not reflective of wider public sentiment?

[TheGunnShow 6,029]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

Why would you presume that reaction here is not reflective of wider public sentiment?

That was why I said "in microcosm".

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

4 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

That was why I said "in microcosm".

I think we're in agreement that there's strong public reaction, but I suspect we disagree with the cause.

Lineker is a high profile figure and a footballing icon in the UK. As I mentioned before there are a lot of very non-progressive football fans out there, as we saw with some of the appalling crowd behaviour in the European cup. Those people got very agitated over the Black Lives Matter kneeling and I've no doubt there's plenty who will be genuinely threatened by an idol speaking in direct conflict to their political views.

I think government is capitalising on public reaction to Lineker's comments, not the other way around. But I see from your original comment that we're basically in agreement as to how the effects are damaging the BBC.

[TheGunnShow 6,029]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

I think we're in agreement that there's strong public reaction, but I suspect we disagree with the cause.

Lineker is a high profile figure and a footballing icon in the UK. As I mentioned before there are a lot of very non-progressive football fans out there, as we saw with some of the appalling crowd behaviour in the European cup. Those people got very agitated over the Black Lives Matter kneeling and I've no doubt there's plenty who will be genuinely threatened by an idol speaking in direct conflict to their political views.

I think government is capitalising on public reaction to Lineker's comments, not the other way around. But I see from your original comment that we're basically in agreement as to how the effects are damaging the BBC.

We agree that there's strong public reaction. Where do you think the cause is, Lineker's tweet or the government's response?

[Capt. Pants 4,300]

Ironically BBC Radio 5 Live did a very good interview with Lineker just before the World Cup where surprisingly they asked his opinion on various things, including Qatar hosting the WC. Strange they didn't seem to mind then!

Don't be influenced by the sometimes wooden and cringeworthy things he comes out with on MOTD etc, he's a very clever and articulate man. The BBC would do well to let this die a death.

[Herman 9,842]

The public are reacting to the government's OTT response not the other way round. His tweet was mild and reasonable but the brexit government can't have someone with a massive profile bringing scrutiny to their disgusting policies. Of course the reaction has been aided and abbetted by the far-right press, as they do.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

He's very clever and articulate. Funnily enough, I've just been reading his Twitter (I don't do Twitter) to see what other stuff he has on there and it's good stuff.

He should go into politics or become a political columnist; that way the attention he got would go into the issues he's talking about instead of arguing about whether or not he should be talking about it.

The BBC can't let it die a death; it's not them driving the scrutiny.

Edited March 9, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

30 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

We agree that there's strong public reaction. Where do you think the cause is, Lineker's tweet or the government's response?

3 minutes ago, Herman said:

The public are reacting to the government's OTT response not the other way round. His tweet was mild and reasonable but the brexit government can't have someone with a massive profile bringing scrutiny to their disgusting policies. Of course the reaction has been aided and abbetted by the far-right press, as they do.

It's a public reaction. And even if the response was driven by the government somehow, they couldn't drive the public support without there being public support for their position.

[TheGunnShow 6,029]

Bearing in mind that Lineker is not obliged to follow any notions of being "impartial" as he's not in their news team, not to mention he is a freelance broadcaster and not an official member of staff, why would the government start urging the BBC to be seen to do something?

What was there in Lineker's tweet that could trigger any sort of reaction from reasonable members of the public at large?

16 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

Ironically BBC Radio 5 Live did a very good interview with Lineker just before the World Cup where surprisingly they asked his opinion on various things, including Qatar hosting the WC. Strange they didn't seem to mind then!

Don't be influenced by the sometimes wooden and cringeworthy things he comes out with on MOTD etc, he's a very clever and articulate man. The BBC would do well to let this die a death.

Fully agreed, especially with the final sentence. However, you can bet some won't let it lie just to suit their agenda. My suspicion is that it'll be those who want the BEEB privatised / to abolish the licence fee.

Edited March 9, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

13 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Bearing in mind that Lineker is not obliged to follow any notions of being "impartial" as he's not in their news team, not to mention he is a freelance broadcaster and not an official member of staff, why would the government start urging the BBC to be seen to do something?

What was there in Lineker's tweet that could trigger any sort of reaction from reasonable members of the public at large?

The government wants to tear the BBC apart and the backlash from a section of the public prompted by Lineker gives them an opportunity to further that cause. It doesn't matter whether he's technically required to be impartial for the attack to work and for it to damage the BBC.

You've already agree that there is a public reaction so your second question makes no sense.

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 6,029]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

The government wants to tear the BBC apart and the backlash from a section of the public prompted by Lineker gives them an opportunity to further that cause. It doesn't matter whether he's technically required to be impartial for the attack to work and for it to damage the BBC.

So the government is the primary problem then, right? 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

So the government is the primary problem then, right? 

Not without there being a strong reaction from a section of the public about the tweet.

[TheGunnShow 6,029]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Not without there being a strong reaction from a section of the public about the tweet.

Except the government didn't have to react. And as you said, they want to tear the BBC apart.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

Just now, TheGunnShow said:

Except the government didn't have to react. And as you said, they want to tear the BBC apart.

I don't really understand what you're arguing about any more. One way or the other, this is all damaging the BBC, and without Lineker's tweet, no damage would be being done to the BBC.

[TheGunnShow 6,029]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I don't really understand what you're arguing about any more. One way or the other, this is all damaging the BBC, and without Lineker's tweet, no damage would be being done to the BBC.

I don't understand how people can be offended by Lineker's tweet.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I don't understand how people can be offended by Lineker's tweet.

I don't understand why you need to understand it when you've already accepted that there must be for there to be so much public division over his tweet.

Edit: It's not complicated though. Millions of the public vote Conservative. Millions of the public voted to leave the EU, many of them because of immigration. It's not difficult to understand why they'd be offended by being likened to Nazi supporters.

Edited March 9, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 6,029]

What's offensive about his tweet? And why would a government respond to it?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

Just now, TheGunnShow said:

What's offensive about his tweet? And why would a government respond to it?

Millions of the public vote Conservative. Millions of the public voted to leave the EU, many of them because of immigration. It's not difficult to understand why they'd be offended by being implicitly likened to Nazi supporters through comparing their party to Nazis.

God knows Labour supporters on here have big enough hissy fits over merely pointing out the lies and corruption they indulged in last time in government, let alone comparing them to genocidal dictatorships. 

 

[Barbe bleu 834]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I think we're in agreement that there's strong public reaction,

Is there a strong public reaction? Or is it the same old members of the public reacting strongly?  Maybe  otto English and laurence fox can tell me about it on twitter.

Actually, I don't care

[TheGunnShow 6,029]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

Millions of the public vote Conservative. Millions of the public voted to leave the EU, many of them because of immigration. It's not difficult to understand why they'd be offended by being implicitly likened to Nazi supporters through comparing their party to Nazis.

God knows Labour supporters on here have big enough hissy fits over merely pointing out the lies and corruption they indulged in last time in government, let alone comparing them to genocidal dictatorships. 

 

Where did he liken swathes of the public to Nazi supporters in his tweet?

He said the planned policy was extremely cruel, and likened the language used by politicians as something reminiscent of 1930s Germany. If that's implicit it looks like a heck of a stretch comparing the language used by politicians to the political outlooks of a considerable swathe of the populace.

The Tories need to regroup and rebuild, and they have done that before. It was a shame when thoroughly decent sorts like Rory Stewart, Dominic Grieve, Anna Soubry, Kenneth Clarke all went/resigned, and when David Cameron (who'll always be justifiably seen as a weak PM, I didn't think he was that bad, but he will always have the referendum held against him) decided to go for the referendum before that.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Where did he liken swathes of the public to Nazi supporters in his tweet?

He said the planned policy was extremely cruel, and likened the language used by politicians as something reminiscent of 1930s Germany. If that's implicit it looks like a heck of a stretch comparing the language used by politicians to the political outlooks of a considerable swathe of the populace.

The Tories need to regroup and rebuild, and they have done that before. It was a shame when thoroughly decent sorts like Rory Stewart, Dominic Grieve, Anna Soubry, Kenneth Clarke all went/resigned, and when David Cameron (who'll always be justifiably seen as a weak PM, I didn't think he was that bad, but he will always have the referendum held against him) decided to go for the referendum before that.

If you support a party and the party is likened to the Nazis then implicitly that makes you someone who'd have supported the Nazis. 1930s German politics was led by the Nazis, so it's just a slightly wordy way of likening the government to the Nazis.

Incidentally, yougov poll says 46% support BBC correspondents airing personal views,, 21% don't know, and 33% are against it.

Honestly, I thought the Tories were dead and buried come next election, but the amount of excitement this is generating is starting to make me second-guess myself.

Speaking as an ex-Tory, who enthusiastically campaigned for Gillian Shephard on the doorstep in the early 2000s alongside Chloe Smith, I can honestly say I'm tired of the nonsense of British politics. I make no secret of the fact that I've always had some disdain for Labour, which was compounded when I joined the Lib Dems in 2015 and heard the stories of the sheer thuggishness of Labour supporters towards the Lib Dems and the stories of Lib Dems finding placards on their own property torn down and replaced with Labour ones.

Personally, I don't want the Conservatives to rebuild; I want PR and the Conservative party to split into a party of fairly steady-Eddie one nation Conservatives like Ken Clarke and John Major that I'm happy to support and can trust to go in and debate sensibly, moderately and civilly with other representatives to find workable ways forward with people with different views who they can find common ground with. And I want Labour to split similarly into the old-school Corbynistas and new Labour types who are barely distinguishable for the Lib Dems who can bicker about the differences while moving forward policies that they can all agree on.

That's a minority view though. Signing off.

 

[Yellow Fever 3,844]

36 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Is there a strong public reaction? Or is it the same old members of the public reacting strongly?  Maybe  otto English and laurence fox can tell me about it on twitter.

Actually, I don't care

There's a manufactured reaction by the usual suspects to Lineker's comments. Those easily led. But that's the point. This is a culture war issue but only pandering to the current Tory base.

Most however I would agree aren't bothered by it 

[TheGunnShow 6,029]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

If you support a party and the party is likened to the Nazis then implicitly that makes you someone who'd have supported the Nazis. 1930s German politics was led by the Nazis, so it's just a slightly wordy way of likening the government to the Nazis.

Incidentally, yougov poll says 46% support BBC correspondents airing personal views,, 21% don't know, and 33% are against it.

Honestly, I thought the Tories were dead and buried come next election, but the amount of excitement this is generating is starting to make me second-guess myself.

Speaking as an ex-Tory, who enthusiastically campaigned for Gillian Shephard on the doorstep in the early 2000s alongside Chloe Smith, I can honestly say I'm tired of the nonsense of British politics. I make no secret of the fact that I've always had some disdain for Labour, which was compounded when I joined the Lib Dems in 2015 and heard the stories of the sheer thuggishness of Labour supporters towards the Lib Dems and the stories of Lib Dems finding placards on their own property torn down and replaced with Labour ones.

Personally, I don't want the Conservatives to rebuild; I want PR and the Conservative party to split into a party of fairly steady-Eddie one nation Conservatives like Ken Clarke and John Major that I'm happy to support and can trust to go in and debate sensibly, moderately and civilly with other representatives to find workable ways forward with people with different views who they can find common ground with. And I want Labour to split similarly into the old-school Corbynistas and new Labour types who are barely distinguishable for the Lib Dems who can bicker about the differences while moving forward policies that they can all agree on.

That's a minority view though. Signing off.

 

Again, it wasn't the party that was likened to the Nazis. It was the language used by some politicians in question to describe refugees and those seeking asylum.

Obviously, you know that I share your stance on PR and in an ideal world I would agree with your last full paragraph in its entirety - as I said, there were thoroughly decent Tory politicians and named several. Including Clarke. And I agree with the idea of Labour splitting up into fundamentally the Blairites and the Corbynistas. The Tories could have split up into, well, Stewartites and Rees-Moggites.

But in the absence of PR, I'll be hoping for a bunch of steadier sorts.

[Herman 9,842]

48 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Is there a strong public reaction? Or is it the same old members of the public reacting strongly?  Maybe  otto English and laurence fox can tell me about it on twitter.

Actually, I don't care

"The idea that the likes of Gary Lineker should just sit by and be silenced while bad people enact terrible things is the very way that far worse things begin." Otto English.

I'm with Otto.😉

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

7 hours ago, king canary said:

But why is he not allowed to express his but Andrew Neill could freely write for the Spectator? 

Lets be honest- his opinion isn't damaging the BBC, it is the fact that the Tories, the Mail and the Sun are happy to disingenuously use it to whip up the sentiment. I don't think he or the BBC should be cowed by it and I'm glad they aren't. 

It all depends on the terms of their respective contracts. I would imagine Andrew Neill has clauses that allow him to write pieces for other media. I have heard it reported that Linekar has a clause in his contract that does not allow him the same privilege. I haven't seen the contracts of either gentlemen so I can't say this is unequivically the case but this is the scenario that would one person to express his opinion and the other not.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

7 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

I don't think Lineker's tweet mentioned N a z i s. Yet the headline makers and Suella herself wanted the public to think that he was comparing Braverman to Goebells. He wasn't and if people think he was then the tweet is lost on them anyway. If she wanted to call him a hypocrite for going to Qatar then that is fine. 

And BBC viewers will still have to pay their licence fee even if they switch off MOTD. It really is just a deflection by a Government that knows the Bill is one of their more stupid bits of legislation.

The only good to come out of it is that surely it is going to force SKS to tell us what his policy will be toward illegal immigration. He has told us fcuk all about any of his others. 

This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the '30s

 

He may have been referring to the Weimar Republic or some other demographic of Germany during that era, so you could be right.

But he does specifically mention the language of the policy and given the Goebells was the controller of language during those turbulent years, he has come pretty close to comparing Braverman to one of the worst humans to have ever set foot on this earth, even if he hasn't specifically stated it.

I just have to add your lot seem pretty heavy into playing the Nazi card these days.

C'mon KG, you know Starmer's illegal immigration policy already. He will be for repatriation right up until the Red Wall enters the polling booth and then we will hear nothing more about it thereafter.

[Pyro Pete 1,931]

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

8 hours ago, Pyro Pete said:

 

Seems akin to seeking out opinions of families of those killed at Hillsborough about safe-standing.

It goes back to the point about superficial and fundamental similarities. At one level, you could say they're being 'rounded up and taken away against their will', but ultimately nobody's being put into forced labour, gassed, or starved to death; nor would anyone want that.

Edited March 10, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[A Load of Squit 5,224]

28 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Seems akin to seeking out opinions of families of those killed at Hillsborough about safe-standing.

It goes back to the point about superficial and fundamental similarities. At one level, you could say they're being 'rounded up and taken away against their will', but ultimately nobody's being put into forced labour, gassed, or starved to death; nor would anyone want that.

You really are stupid.

[king canary 7,681]

12 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Is there a strong public reaction? Or is it the same old members of the public reacting strongly?  Maybe  otto English and laurence fox can tell me about it on twitter.

Actually, I don't care

This.

The same people aho don't like the BBC will froth at the mouth. Those that do like them and don't like the Government will defend Lineker. Eventually we'll move onto the next thing. 

12 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Honestly, I thought the Tories were dead and buried come next election, but the amount of excitement this is generating is starting to make me second-guess myself.

The idea this will have any sway on the Tory chances in the next election is a bit silly. The culture was stuff can work in a vacuum but when it comes to it very few people are making their decision at the ballot box on the basis of whether the BBC is full of woke lefties. 

Where it does help the Tories, to an extent, is they can use it to claim 'we're doing the will of the people and these rich out of touch elites don't get it' but they'd be doing that anyway.