Gary Lineker is embroiled in another Gaza row

[Crimson Dynamo]

Gary Lineker is embroiled in another Gaza row as he is accused of being 'tone-
deaf' after referring to the October 7 terror attacks in Israel as 'the Hamas
thing'


https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/05/13/01/84779195-13410495-image-m-81_1715559774249.jpg


He says he cries on a regular basis....

Gary Lineker has been slammed for making 'tone-deaf' comments after
seemingly referring to the October 7 attacks on Israel as 'the Hamas thing'.


The controversy-prone BBC commentator made the remark on the British-
American broadcaster Medhi Hasan's Medhi Unfiltered programme.

Discussing the ongoing war in Gaza, Lineker said: 'I can't think of anything
that I've seen worse in my lifetime. The constant images of children losing
their lives day in, day out.

'Now obviously we all know October 7 happened, and the Hamas thing, but
the minute you raise your voice against what they're now doing there, you
get accused of being a supporter of Hamas.'

A spokesperson for the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) said: 'Gary is
not a lone heroic voice: he is one of a mob offering up one-sided, tone-deaf
interventions on social media.

'It has not escaped anyone's notice that, despite his clear interest in the topic
and social media habit, he has barely commented on the worst anti-Semitic
atrocity since the Holocaust on October 7 - 'the Hamas thing', as he now
reluctantly referred to it in passing.'

The CAA added: 'Far from being silenced, Mr Lineker's stance has become so
normalised - and the voice of the mob of which he is part has grown so loud -
that the BBC is desensitised to it and regularly ignores the clear breaches of
its impartiality guidelines that these interventions represent.'

His comments came as part of an interview with Guardian columnist and
prominant Israeli critic Mehdi Hasan for 'independant and unfliltered' news
site Zeteo.

The former England captain, 63, has previously landed himself in hot water
for his political interventions which critics see as flagrant breaches of the
BBC's impartiality rules.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13410495/Gary-Lineker-embroiled-Gaza-row-accused-tone-deaf-referring-October-7-terror-attacks-Israel-Hamas-thing.html

[arista]

Yes I watched clips of him
last night.

BBC is not able to control what he says
it seems.

[user104658]

He also says he's getting on a bit/does not need the employment or money and has decided to say whatever the **** he wants so fair play to him. What can you really do about it. Nowt :worry: :joker:.

[Cherie]

He also says he's getting on a bit/does not need the employment or money and has decided to say whatever the **** he wants so fair play to him. What can you really do about it. Nowt :worry: :joker:.

er he should be relieved of his well paid job, plenty others to fill his boots, if he is doesn't need the cash he is just using his tax payer funded job as a platform for his views so he should step down if he had any real morals

[Kate!]

He's a bit of an idiot.

[user104658]

er he should be relieved of his well paid job, plenty others to fill his boots, if he is doesn't need the cash he is just using his tax payer funded job as a platform for his views so he should step down if he had any real morals

Why would anyone step down from a platform and why would it be their moral responsibility to do so? Just not really accurate as to how the world works.

You could argue that it's immoral of the BBC to continue to offer/fund this platform if they know it to be against the wishes of license payers or (more importantly, because there's really nothing positive at all in mob rule) it goes against established impartiality rules.

But putting the moral responsibility on an individual to step away from a platform that they're using to speak about things they believe in? An odd sort of "morality" there.

[Crimson Dynamo]

He's a bit of an idiot.

a plonker

[Cherie]

Why would anyone step down from a platform and why would it be their moral responsibility to do so? Just not really accurate as to how the world works.

You could argue that it's immoral of the BBC to continue to offer/fund this platform if they know it to be against the wishes of license payers or (more importantly, because there's really nothing positive at all in mob rule) it goes against established impartiality rules.

But putting the moral responsibility on an individual to step away from a platform that they're using to speak about things they believe in? An odd sort of "morality" there.

You just said he bragged he is getting on a bit and doesn't need the money, so step away then and give it to someone who does, someone who needs to pay their mortgage perhaps or bring up a family....he is such a do gooder after all its the least he could do...no?

[Liam-]

Free speech innit

[user104658]

You just said he bragged he is getting on a bit and doesn't need the money, so step away then and give it to someone who does, someone who needs to pay their mortgage perhaps or bring up a family....he is such a do gooder after all its the least he could do...no?

He doesn't need to keep the platform to support himself and his family, so he's happy to speak his mind even if it means losing the platform, thus, he should immediately give up the platform and lose the ability to use that platform to speak his mind, which would have been the reason he might lose the platform?

:think:

Convoluted nonsense - you only expect him to give up the platform because you don't like what he has to say. If the world worked that way, NO ONE would be saying anything about anything, because there will always be some people who don't like it.

If this is an argument that the BBC and its supposed impartiality and the BBC license fee shouldn't exist at all then I am fully in favour of that. But it's the institution that's broken and the problem, not Gary Linekar "having thoughts about stuff". I get that you find him insufferable, I personally find his views to be well-meaning but not particularly well developed or nuanced, but he's fairly benign. Look at the hoard of puffy faced arseholes we're forced to endure Twitter/YouTube videos of DAILY on this site. Is Gary Linekar worse because his views come from a slightly more (not even very, but supposedly) left-leaning perspective?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Free speech innit

hardly free as most people have to pay a tv tax so he can earn over £1 million a year

[The Slim Reaper]

There aren't that many ex-footballers struggling to pay their mortgages :laugh:

[The Slim Reaper]

hardly free as most people have to pay a tv tax so he can earn over £1 million a year

Lineker is the only person on the BBC to earn a salary and have views that someone might not like? Laura Kuenssberg has a weekly TV show she uses purely to shill for Tories, and I doubt it's voluntary work.

[bots]

Half the reason anyone takes any notice of him is because he is on match of the day, so it does help amplify his voice in these situations.


The funny thing is that without LT bringing it up here, I wouldn't have a clue what Gary was saying, so Gary can thank LT for helping him to get his message out to the people :laugh:


There are all sorts of people that have a disproportionate voice in society, some good, some bad. All JKR did was plagiarise an existing book idea for a really crap book series, and now she thinks she can talk on any subject and people should listen

[Crimson Dynamo]

There aren't that many ex-footballers struggling to pay their mortgages :laugh:

Only a tiny fraction of all football players get prem wages

--------

The average wage of a Premier League footballer is just over £60,000 a
week, which equates to more than 3 million a year. Premier League
footballers are the highest paid; lower divisions receive much less.

Championship wages are just over £4,000 a week, which is around £200,000
a year. This is an excellent example of how quickly wages can drop below the
Premier League, even though they’re still generous.

Players in the bottom division are paid considerably worse than Premier
League and even Championship players, earning around £750 per week,
which isn’t much higher than the national average.



https://thepfsa.co.uk/football-wages-how-much-do-footballers-get-paid/

[The Slim Reaper]

Only a tiny fraction of all football players get prem wages

--------

The average wage of a Premier League footballer is just over £60,000 a
week, which equates to more than 3 million a year. Premier League
footballers are the highest paid; lower divisions receive much less.

Championship wages are just over £4,000 a week, which is around £200,000
a year. This is an excellent example of how quickly wages can drop below the
Premier League, even though they’re still generous.

Players in the bottom division are paid considerably worse than Premier
League and even Championship players, earning around £750 per week,
which isn’t much higher than the national average.



https://thepfsa.co.uk/football-wages-how-much-do-footballers-get-paid/

To host the flagship footie program on the BBC that concentrates solely on the top division, they wouldn't go and get someone who'd flitted between league 1 and 2 his whole career, so wages across the footie pyramid aren't really relevant.

[Crimson Dynamo]

To host the flagship footie program on the BBC that concentrates solely on the top division, they wouldn't go and get someone who'd flitted between league 1 and 2 his whole career, so wages across the footie pyramid aren't really relevant.

They regularly have women on talking about men's Premier league when their level of football equates to an average under 15 top level men's team

[bots]

They regularly have women on talking about men's Premier league when their level of football equates to an average under 15 top level men's team

yes, but they are paid about 50 pence for their appearance, while Gary and Alan are paid a fortune. Not all pundits are equal

[Crimson Dynamo]

yes, but they are paid about 50 pence for their appearance, while Gary and Alan are paid a fortune. Not all pundits are equal

wait

they get paid?

:omgno:

[Swan]

He's such a poor presenter, i don't care about his political beliefs, although he was a massive smug hypocrite when it came to the WC in Qatar. But yeah, back to his presenting style, it's all "errrr sooo eerrrmmm eerrrmmmm what errr do you erm ermm think uh uh erm Alan about that erm controversial var erm uh decis er ion".

[Crimson Dynamo]

He's such a poor presenter, i don't care about his political beliefs, although he was a massive smug hypocrite when it came to the WC in Qatar. But yeah, back to his presenting style, it's all "errrr sooo eerrrmmm eerrrmmmm what errr do you erm ermm think uh uh erm Alan about that erm controversial var erm uh decis er ion".

I gave up watching some time ago

on way too late and for too long

you can watch all the highlights hours before anyroad

[bots]

the last time i watched MotD was at the last controversy, and at least 20 years prior to that. Alan Hanson was a regular then

[Swan]

I gave up watching some time ago

on way too late and for too long

you can watch all the highlights hours before anyroad

I've not watched MOTD in years, but if i watch an FA Cup tie, or a summer tournament he's naturally all over any BBC coverage. It's mainly during half time i suffer through his half arsed smug style of presenting, he's just so poor.

And i will never in a million years understand how Steve McMananaman manages to secure employment with BT/TNT. If im watching games for free, i do my absolute best to avoid the TNT streams with him on commentary. He has some dirt on higher ups at the company, or is shagging someone important to his employment, there's no other scenario where he keeps his job.

[Beso]

Always said he looks like a debearded muslim.

Take you giant elasticatic rubber lugs and **** off gary...you ain't no seb coe.

[Swan]

I remember him saying his was a darker white person back in the day, and was in the same boat as black players in the 80's.

[Cherie]

Haven't watched MOTD in years, does it still get a big viewership? the only time I see snippets are if I turn on the TV on a Sunday morning and see the rerun

[Cherie]

He doesn't need to keep the platform to support himself and his family, so he's happy to speak his mind even if it means losing the platform, thus, he should immediately give up the platform and lose the ability to use that platform to speak his mind, which would have been the reason he might lose the platform?

:think:

Convoluted nonsense - you only expect him to give up the platform because you don't like what he has to say. If the world worked that way, NO ONE would be saying anything about anything, because there will always be some people who don't like it.

If this is an argument that the BBC and its supposed impartiality and the BBC license fee shouldn't exist at all then I am fully in favour of that. But it's the institution that's broken and the problem, not Gary Linekar "having thoughts about stuff". I get that you find him insufferable, I personally find his views to be well-meaning but not particularly well developed or nuanced, but he's fairly benign. Look at the hoard of puffy faced arseholes we're forced to endure Twitter/YouTube videos of DAILY on this site. Is Gary Linekar worse because his views come from a slightly more (not even very, but supposedly) left-leaning perspective?


Not at all, I dont ever hear what he has to say unless it is posted on here, I think the same of any of the overpaid stars on BBC ...they are not worth the money they are paid whatever their political views are


btw I would check your BP after your opening paragraph think you might be having a stroke its so garbled :umm2:

[user104658]

btw I would check your BP after your opening paragraph think you might be having a stroke its so garbled :umm2:

It's garbled because it's an accurate summing up of your circular logic on why he should resign (and why not doing so is immoral). It's not my fault that your argument is nonsensical :nono:.

ALSO I'll have you know I'm the healthiest I've been in about a decade and my resting heart rate often sits at around 55 :smug:. If anything I'm more worried that I might just relax myself into a coma :umm2:.

[Beso]

He shouldnt resign, he should be sacked for trivialising rape, murder, kidnap and torture.

[user104658]

He shouldnt resign, he should be sacked for trivialising rape, murder, kidnap and torture.

In what way is he trivialising anything?

[Beso]

Calling oct 7th..that hamas thing.


I wouldn't be surprised if he did the inverted commas hand gesture when he said it.

[bots]

people have alternative views that get attention these days. We are never going to agree on everything, but i wouldn't want my viewpoint shut down by others, so why should we want to do that to anyone

[Cherie]

It's garbled because it's an accurate summing up of your circular logic on why he should resign (and why not doing so is immoral). It's not my fault that your argument is nonsensical :nono:.

ALSO I'll have you know I'm the healthiest I've been in about a decade and my resting heart rate often sits at around 55 :smug:. If anything I'm more worried that I might just relax myself into a coma :umm2:.



:laugh:

[DemRed]

hardly free as most people have to pay a tv tax so he can earn over £1 million a year


Yeah, fu**ing tax. Personally I object to sending tax money to Israel?

[DemRed]

Free speech innit

There's a good few on here that don't like free speech!

[user104658]

Yeah, fu**ing tax. Personally I object to sending tax money to Israel?

To be fair that money is being sent straight on to Gaza

https://i.imgur.com/Sl7Q2qy.png

[bots]

I think the world needs to wake up. We are at war. I don't know why the world leaders continue to deny it.


We are at war in the middle east. We can't let Iran win, so why are we trying to tie Israel hands behind their back.

We are at war with Russia, so why do Nato leaders deny funding, troops and equipment to Ukraine. Do they expect Ukraine to fight on, on our behalf with edicts like don't strike Russian territory, when Russia is invading Ukraine?

We are being played for fools at the moment

[user104658]

I think the world needs to wake up. We are at war. I don't know why the world leaders continue to deny it.


We are at war in the middle east. We can't let Iran win, so why are we trying to tie Israel hands behind their back.

We are at war with Russia, so why do Nato leaders deny funding, troops and equipment to Ukraine. Do they expect Ukraine to fight on, on our behalf with edicts like don't strike Russian territory, when Russia is invading Ukraine?

We are being played for fools at the moment

I'm going to hazard a guess that it's probably maybe because they don't want to start a full-scale conflict that would end up going nuclear and result in the destruction of the entire planet. Not sure but it seems like a valid possibility.

[bots]

I'm going to hazard a guess that it's probably maybe because they don't want to start a full-scale conflict that would end up going nuclear and result in the destruction of the entire planet. Not sure but it seems like a valid possibility.

There are compelling reasons why it won't go nuclear, and western leaders are allowing Putin to bully them.

Also, does it really matter if Armageddon happens next week or in a year? at the end of the day, its still Armageddon

[user104658]

Also, does it really matter if Armageddon happens next week or in a year? at the end of the day, its still Armageddon

I mean, sort of? That's like asking if it really matters if you die of old age in 10 years or get hit by a bus tomorrow - "you're going to die anyway!".

[Liam-]

There's a good few on here that don't like free speech!

They like free speech when people agree with them

[Cherie]

They like free speech when people agree with them

:joker: so do you, you are no that special

[Livia]

There's a good few on here that don't like free speech!

They like free speech when people agree with them

Both of you should Google the meaning of 'irony'.

[Beso]

They like free speech when people agree with them

Who doesnt:shrug:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Both of you should Google the meaning of 'irony'.

:joker:

[DemRed]

To be fair that money is being sent straight on to Gaza

https://i.imgur.com/Sl7Q2qy.png

Exactly. Our tax money is being used to aid and abet murder.

[bots]

Exactly. Our tax money is being used to aid and abet murder.

it's being used to protect a country that it's neighbours want to wipe out, or have you forgotten that. The massacre on october 7th and the massive missile attack by Iran didn't happen?

[The Slim Reaper]

it's being used to protect a country that it's neighbours want to wipe out, or have you forgotten that. The massacre on october 7th and the massive missile attack by Iran didn't happen?

This is a half truth and a lie, at best.

[arista]

Free speech innit

Yes but Gary's views
upset more folks
than those who like him.


Slick Liam.

[Liam-]

Yes but Gary's views
upset more folks
than those who like him.


Slick Liam.

So? Free speech for everyone or free speech for nobody

[AnnieK]

I read this title as embroiled in a Gazza row.....I thought he was having a go / defending Paul Gascoigne :o

[Zizu]

I’ve always liked Lineker..

Strangw his brother is a ‘proper bad ‘un’ though .. apparently


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[DemRed]

people have alternative views that get attention these days. We are never going to agree on everything, but i wouldn't want my viewpoint shut down by others, so why should we want to do that to anyone

If we all agreed, we would either have a very evil world, a very peaceful world or a very boring one! The saying goes: Most of us have two eyes but none of us have the same view.

I agree with you.

[arista]

So? Free speech for everyone or free speech for nobody


But he works for the BBC
this is why he gets tangled in a mess.

[Crimson Dynamo]

But he works for the BBC
this is why he gets tangled in a mess.

Can you imagine a BBC worker saying Israel are only protecting their people

No

Me neither

[Livia]

I don't like Lineker. I prefer Mark Chapman to analyse West Ham's latest loss.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I don't like Lineker. I prefer Mark Chapman to analyse West Ham's latest loss.

Good lad is chappers

[Mystic Mock]

I personally support his right to say whatever he likes, the BBC imo shouldn't have the power to dictate what someone else wants to say in a democratic country.

However, he definitely should've re-phrased "the Hamas thing" into something less cold and clinical.

[Mystic Mock]

I've not watched MOTD in years, but if i watch an FA Cup tie, or a summer tournament he's naturally all over any BBC coverage. It's mainly during half time i suffer through his half arsed smug style of presenting, he's just so poor.

And i will never in a million years understand how Steve McMananaman manages to secure employment with BT/TNT. If im watching games for free, i do my absolute best to avoid the TNT streams with him on commentary. He has some dirt on higher ups at the company, or is shagging someone important to his employment, there's no other scenario where he keeps his job.

The TNT team make the Sky Sports crew seem exciting.:joker:

[Mystic Mock]

I remember him saying his was a darker white person back in the day, and was in the same boat as black players in the 80's.

That's a legendary statement.

Lineker's IQ appears to be at a similar level to the Destroyer Of Championship Clubs (Wayne Rooney.)

[Mystic Mock]

people have alternative views that get attention these days. We are never going to agree on everything, but i wouldn't want my viewpoint shut down by others, so why should we want to do that to anyone

:clap1:

Someone speaking what should be common sense.

[Mystic Mock]

I think the world needs to wake up. We are at war. I don't know why the world leaders continue to deny it.


We are at war in the middle east. We can't let Iran win, so why are we trying to tie Israel hands behind their back.

We are at war with Russia, so why do Nato leaders deny funding, troops and equipment to Ukraine. Do they expect Ukraine to fight on, on our behalf with edicts like don't strike Russian territory, when Russia is invading Ukraine?

We are being played for fools at the moment

I can see your point tbh.

And wait until the China vs Taiwan conflict escalates.

[Mystic Mock]

I'm going to hazard a guess that it's probably maybe because they don't want to start a full-scale conflict that would end up going nuclear and result in the destruction of the entire planet. Not sure but it seems like a valid possibility.

Nobody would be insane enough in this day and age to use Nukes.

Unless Putin wants his country wiped out of existence.

[Ammi]

…I’m really quite conflicted in what I feel about what Gary Lineker said ….he always seems like a thoughtful guy but I only really ever am aware of his words when they’ve been deemed by the media to have been controversial because he’s not someone that I watch or listen to as a football pundit…he’s someone that speaks from the heart and as a humanitarian is what he’s said …and obviously some of his words … 'I can't think of anything
that I've seen worse in my lifetime. The constant images of children losing
their lives day in, day out’….are also being expressed by so much of the world’s people day in and day out because the loss of innocent life is horrific…

…there are so many ways that Hamas’ attack on October 7 could have been described if a descriptive were to have been used…so many words that he could have used…?…brutal..?…savage…?…inhuman…?…merciless…?…
murderous…?…evil and wicked…?…heinous…?…those are all words that are used in terrorist attacks and slaughter of innocence, aren’t they…like with 9/11 for instance, I can’t think of it as being referred to as ‘a 9/11 thing’…because it just …diminishes and reduces something murderous and brutal that should never be diminished or reduced…and I get ‘freedom of speech’ also…but when people are ‘influencers’ as Gary is…then the words used in their humanitarian feelings and thoughts are surely of great importance as they carry a weight, also…and that weight also has humanitarian implications, or I should say, can have, on and for the Jewish communities around us…

..anyway, ‘the Hamas’ is not just an unfortunate phrasing, it’s very diminishing and depreciating of an horrific attack, I feel…so not a good look for a humanitarian person as he is ….

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/football/2023/03/08/TELEMMGLPICT000328187639_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq_6orlEB AVPe7uVKP8LZS0G10wBSXuadBxsydQlIHV8s.jpeg?imwidth= 680


Gary Lineker, the BBC’s chief political commentator, believes it’s unfair that
he receives so much criticism for his comments on Israel and Gaza. “The
minute you raise your voice against what they’re now doing there,” he
complained during an interview with the Left-wing journalist Mehdi Hasan,
“you get accused of being a supporter of
Hamas.”

Any such accusation is clearly outrageous. I’m quite sure St Gary doesn’t
support Hamas, or indeed any other genocidal Islamist terror group.

I do, however, think he suffers from the same problem as an awful lot of
Western progressives. Which is that, when it comes to Israel, he has
absolutely no idea how biased he sounds.

As a matter of fact, he demonstrated this during the very same interview.
Speaking about the war in Gaza, St Gary said: “I can’t think of anything that
I’ve seen worse in my lifetime.”

This is a remarkable statement. Not least because St Gary was born all the
way back in November 1960. And, during the 63 and a half years since, the
world has endured quite a large number of brutal conflicts. Take the Second
Congo War (1998-2003), which
claimed an estimated 5.4m lives. And the Vietnam War (1955-75), which
claimed an estimated 3.5m. And the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-89), which
claimed an estimated 2m. To name but a few.

Indeed, far from being the bloodiest conflict since 1960, the war in Gaza isn’t
even the bloodiest being fought right now. The Syrian civil war, which began
in 2011, has so far killed more than 600,000 people. Then there’s the small matter of Russia’s war in
Ukraine. And, as mentioned in Saturday’s Way of the World, the ongoing
conflict in Sudan. To give just one small glimpse of the horror: a 17-year-old
Sudanese boy told Human Rights Watch that he’d witnessed paramilitaries
shooting children and then flinging
their corpses into a river.

St Gary, however, says he can’t think of anything that he’s seen worse in his
lifetime than what Israel is currently doing in Gaza, in its efforts to destroy
Hamas. I’ve no doubt that he’s being entirely sincere. I merely wonder how
he came to such a conclusion,
given that so many other conflicts in his lifetime have been even more
horrifying, and killed vastly more people.

Perhaps, during his glorious playing days, St Gary was so relentlessly focused
on his football that he never watched the news or opened a newspaper – and
therefore simply didn’t hear about these other conflicts. I suppose that’s one
possibility.

Even so, it is curious that Western progressives in general always seem so
very much louder in their condemnation of Israel than in their condemnation
of other warring nations. What exactly is it about Israel that makes them
constantly single it out like this?

I fear we may never know.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/14/gary-lineker-latest-israel-outburst-is-his-worst-yet/

[Beso]

And we all know gary would be barging people out the way to be first on the plane to israel if the world cup was held there.

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GDZok9TWYAAxO-E?format=jpg&name=large