Linekar is at it again. This time Nazis! - knuckles rapped now back!
 

The Match of the Day prompt reader called the new Illegal Migration Bill an
“immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people, in language
that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s”.


The plans, unveiled by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, on Tuesday,
effectively ban those arriving via an illegal route from claiming asylum in the
UK.

Anyone caught attempting to enter the country illegally will also be barred from
returning or from claiming British citizenship in the future.

https://images.ctfassets.net/pjshm78...400&h=225&q=80

Mr Lineker's remarks were widely condemned by critics, who said they were
inappropriate for a BBC employee.

Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister whose wife and children are Jewish,
had condemned Mr Lineker's remarks earlier on Wednesday.

“My children are the grandchildren of Holocaust survivors and I think those
sorts of words should not be thrown around lightly,” he told Times Radio.

“Gary Lineker is paid for by the British taxpayer and it's disappointing that he
is so far out of step with the British public.”

In a separate interview on LBC, he suggested Mr Lineker should be sacked by
the BBC, demanding the presenter be shown a “red card”.

Ms Braverman echoed Mr Jenrick, calling Mr Lineker’s remarks
“irresponsible”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...ure-nazi-jibe/

Being compared to the Nazis is so overused that even when someone is espousing similar policies, the accusation no longer means anything.

I'm open to being proven wrong, but I can't think of any Nazi propaganda which talked about how their public services were stretched to breaking point, how they were overpopulated, and how the illegal migrants were costing them millions.

The BBC won’t sack Gary Lineker – because the elites agree with him
 

Does anyone really expect Lineker to be sacked, any more than he was the last
time he let rip on Twitter? The BBC does not sack its Left-liberal minded
contributors, however outrageous their remarks on or off-screen. It didn’t
happen when newsreader Maxine Croxall pulled a gleeful face when reporting
Boris Johnson’s withdrawal from the most recent Tory leadership contest.
Croxall was “pulled off air” – but was back within a few weeks. It didn’t happen
either, when Jo Brand suggested that protesters who had been throwing milk
shake over politicians should use battery acid instead. The BBC complaints
department admitted that the comment had gone “too far”, but denied it
amounted to incitement, and the corporation continued to employ Jo Brand.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...-elites-agree/

he won't be sacked but he should be given he was warned before. Impartial BBC at it's best

Why do people like Lineker and Gary Neville insist on commenting on politics or subjects they are not qualified to speak on ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yes LT

Even the Labour Shadow
has said the BBC must stop him calling us Nazi's

The BBC says he is sports presenter.


So What?

He Works at the BBC
and gets Evil Political talk going

Well there was nothing sporting about his vile comments, does anyone even like him ?

They do not follow them


I know about as it
as Every TV & Radio show today
is debating should Lineker be Fired?

It's important to point out when rhetoric starts to sound like nazism. It reminds me of both Putin and a commentator in the US recently. Putin blamed the war they started on Ukraine, while this commentator basically made out that the 'war against trans' was down to trans people themselves, and both of these statements echoed a statement made by the nazis that the jews were responsible for WW2.

The Right Wing is becoming more radicalised, and their rhetoric is becoming more comparable with nazism. If you have a problem with that being pointed out, and not the fact that such radicalisation is becoming common place, then you are part of the problem.

I mean, the BBC is right wing as **** so if you're acting like it is, then you're confusing right wing preference for impartiality.

Look at all the free speech warriors wanting someone sacked and punished for having an opinion.

A person is allowed to post their opinions of the government on their own personal social media if they wish to, even if they work for a tv channel, we may be close to living in a government controlled dictatorship, but we’re not there yet, the government urging their bbc boss friend to have a word with a tv presenter for criticising them on his own time, away from his job, should terrify anyone who respects the law, freedom and democracy

All people are qualified to speak on politics, if they weren't then Serious Debates would certainly be dead, because no regular here would be considered qualified either.

The problem lies with you and your desire to silence people from partaking in politics.

lineker has nearly 6 million followers, so they do follow him

he only has a voice because of the BBC and the BBC is supposed to be impartial. It is written into their contracts that it applies to all opinion they express on social media

Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee, it's always been the case.

These people want to say what they want without consequence but god forbid anyone says anything that goes against their fragile little echo chamber.

Except it isn't impartial and it never has been. Question Time allows Right wing people to run wild while shutting down left wing points of view, Laura Kuensberg is soft on Tories and harsh to everyone else and the organisation as a whole seems to kowtow completely to the tories.

You want someone to face consequences for having an opinion that you don't like, and it's not an opinion that can inspire violence or hate. It's literally just pointing out the similarities in rhetoric.

You don't believe in impartiality, you want the BBC to continue being right-wing focused while punishing anyone who speaks against it.

I don't particularly have an issue with the comparison other than that it's lazy. It's also a pretty difficult and problematic stance to take when it comes to immigration, given that Israel itself has one of the strictest, worst and most exclusive/irrational immigration policies in the world ... if not in fact THE most. So it's a discussion best avoided for fear of falling into a dodgy trap on comparison of policies... to be blunt, if you take the Godwin stance on the current UK immigration policy, you rationally HAVE TO say the same thing about the Israeli policy, and then you're in 20 feet of hot water with no ladder.

I won't deny for a second though that the UK's immigration policy is short-sighted and fundamentally racist. Has there ever been anything quite so glaring as the UK government appealing for UK households to take in and sponsor Ukrainian families whilst sighing "oh well" when Syrian children wash up face down on our beaches?

And then all of those "well meaning" White British families finding out that Ukrainians are actually quite culturally different to British people and saying "'old on a minute guvna, these folks just LOOK like us, they ain't like us at all!!" and putting them out :idc:.

[QUOTE=Soldier Boy;11268900]
I won't deny for a second though that the UK's immigration policy is short-sighted and fundamentally racist. L/QUOTE]

It's certainly an argument that can be made. Why people feel the need to compare everyone and everything they don't like to Nazis and Hitler is, as you say, lazy at best and stupid at worst.

Well, Israel's governments and policies are not something to aspire to, and the various human rights abuses they've committed should be examined and spoken about.

If the UK's government is employing Nazi-esque rhetoric, then it should be spoken about and opposed, just like how Israel's policies and human rights abuse have been problematic too.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out when governments are slipping into fascism, and such behaviours should be encouraged.

To be fair I would however also argue that Linekar is an ex-footballer who is not a footie commentator, and that it's fair and right for everyone to be allowed an opinion. We shouldn't particularly expect them to always be well developed or nuanced. Take them as they are, accept whatever merit might be there and disregard the rest. Not worth getting too hot 'n' bothered about.

[QUOTE=Oliver_W;11268909]Generally speaking, if someone is speaking in a way like the nazis did, then that should be enough for them to reflect on what they are saying.

Taking issue with the comparison itself and not the words that inspired it is the problem.

Agreed, I don't really care what Linekar says, nor do I think he should be fired. I just happen to think what he said was lazy and stupid :joker:
Who has been speaking in a way the Nazis did? Specifically?

You have to pick your audience though, if you're with a group of people who have some knowledge and understanding of the propaganda used in 1930's then it's an interesting enough discussion (because of course, the scary truth is that the average German people who were lapping this up back then were NOT "evil Nazis"... they were just frustrated people who were taken in by a manipulative orator). BUT if you throw it around in normal discourse these days, it just makes it too easy for people to say "Pff yawn more Nazi comparisons" and disregard the actual comparisons without even giving it a second thought.

Do keep up Oliver, or are you commenting on a thread about this issue when you don't even know what it's about?

If so, then it's not down to me to inform you, if you wish to remain uninformed and ignorant, that's your choice. Your ignorance has no impact the reality of things.

People choosing to be ignorant will be ignorant regardless. I'm not one to pander to them.