GboroRam

22 minutes ago, sage said:

He may right, but I haven't seen a source. 

Lugenpresse primarily referred to the foreign press. He didn't accuse the German press of lying as he controlled it, so there was no critical press in Germany. 

1 hour ago, Archied said:

Give over , you know priorities have been changed , kids are there to protect the adults / elderly and be pawns in culture wars 

ahh for the old days when it was nature to protect and nurture the young

Do you honestly believe that? 

I have 5 boys aged between 9 and 13, and I can honestly say I think schools do a far, far better job protecting children than they did in the 80s. Bullying, abuse and horrific behaviour was rife throughout my childhood. And nobody cared and nobody acted upon it. 

An ex colleague of mine gave me a tip, but I was too busy for the hour or so notice he gave me, so I missed out on the 66/1 winner.

He said the next time out would be the last time the odds were worth taking, so I filled my boots at £50 when it was 8/1. Fell at the first.

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

You're on dodgy ground, thats twice you've used the H word, and I daresay said moderator would be a H for banning me twice and letting other posters get away with it ?

Who did he call a hypocrite? 

Who did you call a hypocrite? 

WTF did I just read? 

1 hour ago, Archied said:

On a serious note if you’re a hypocrite about walking the walk while preaching the talk then yes it’s impossible, your not a socialist your a sham pain socialist ??‍♂️
take me , I believe in lots of socialist values but I can’t look myself in the mirror and claim to be a proper socialist, how about you ?

No, I can't claim you're a proper socialist either. 

3 hours ago, Archied said:

Hmmm the old elastic trick ehhh , my old mum always told me ( I do my best to stick to it ) keep your own side of the street clean , I consider neither Lineker or Neville either humanists or socialists , I consider them self serving hypocrites who do more harm than good because because the slightest glance at they’re side of the street makes decent people think ahhh that’s the kind of world/ country your calling for,,,duck that ??‍♂️

Is it impossible to be a Socialist and a hypocrite? 

58 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I think we don't need reminders that you are prone to distorting things. It is illegal to enter UK without permission.  

Of course it's illegal. The government has criminalised it. 

45 minutes ago, Archied said:

Out of interest do you class Lineker and Neville as socialists?

Humanists yes. I don't know their politics regarding fair distribution of wealth so couldn't say. 

Being rich isn't an indicator. Paying your tax is more about personal morality. He can still be Socialist and abuse a broken capitalist tax system. 

9 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

A lot of Socialist aims (pretty much all of them) are well intentioned. But it is the cost of them that is the main issue... a cost that would need to be borne by our children and grandchildren.   I do think a better health service will cost some money. And social housing. And better welfare benefits. And education. And pensions. And if you want more illegal immigrants, you have to pay for the lawyers and the Judges to asses their claims (or maybe just let them in anyway) ,  and the translators, and the hotels and the housing, the roads and the rail network (HS2 anyone?) and more health services and education costs . If you want us to go for net zero well fine replace your gas boiler , put in solar panels and  cavity wall insulation and double glazing. Buy an electric car which is more expensive and less efficient. Meanwhile we will destroy the environment anyway by building all those houses, roads and railways over natural habitats. If you want us to have equal pay for women well that seems fair but tough luck if you are a man you might  need to take a pay cut (which even Lineker had to do). Or not get the job you want at all because you are not diverse enough. And so on. It means more taxes (and other costs) out of people's incomes they can ill afford at the moment. 

I think it's fine for Mr Lineker (if he wasn't funded by me)  to be saying what he thinks, but maybe people who have not been as lucky (or when he was a footballer quite gifted) might have different views and perhaps be a bit upset about being called racists for holding those views.     

But socialism isn't about a working health service. It isn't about benefits, or education. Pensions, we'll, if we actually get out what we put in, how's that costing money - I'd say I'm more interested in stopping the government raiding our money let alone private businesses. It's not about net zero and saving the planet. I don't think fair pay is socialism, unless you're arguing that capitalism is about unfair pay. Socialism isn't about diversity. 

I'm not sure why Lineker's paymaster should mean we control what he's allowed to say. That's definitely not socialism. 

All the above things are about being decent human beings trying to make the best of a difficult situation. Which as a Socialist, I'm all in favour of. 

Socialism is seeking to stop the raid of working people's labour, to profit from other people's hard work. 

31 minutes ago, Archied said:

very very few of us really are because it costs ,  ?????

Sorry, can't remove the emojis. 

Why do you say being a Socialist costs? How does it cost? 

9 minutes ago, sage said:

Is this the same Gary Lineker who persuaded Walkers to donate thousands of pounds worth of food to homeless charities.

Look at him, with his batty eyelids

Sounds like a horrible person. 

I've heard stories of a particularly unpleasant side of him, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were true. But I think he can be simultaneously interested in helping address a particularly nasty government policy while being morally questionable. I also think that by publicising one thing, it doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't care about other things. 

I mean, what about the poor overburdened Spanish donkeys, he's clearly a monster having never said anything about it. As for poor Maddie, he clearly couldn't care less about that poor girl. Same with Myra Hindley. What an absolute swine. 

Oh yes - pay your tax, Gary. I can't imagine anyone being keen on seeing him evade anything. In fact the only people who I recall complaining about paying tax were the anti Corbyn types during the threads around the last general election. The woke lefty scum generally wanted more people paying more tax. 

Better than I got. 

When the night is dark,
And the dogs go 'bark',
When the clouds are black,
And the ducks go 'quack',
When the sky is blue,
And the cows go 'moo',
Think of lovely Derby:
She'll be thinking of you.

1 hour ago, Archied said:

 unlike Lineker who would not bat an eyelid at the homeless dying of cold on the streets whilst pushing immigrants AHEAD of them in the que for help , 

As is par for the course on this thread, can you back this up please? How do you know he'd not bat an eyelid?

What's the solution to homelessness, in your opinion? 

4 hours ago, Archied said:

Wonder if our mr Lineker has just the one home 

Possibly he has more. 

Maybe many things can be wrong at the same time, and whataboutery doesn't diminish any of them? 

I wonder why so many people tuned in to watch that program that everyone has been talking about for the last few days? 

51 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

Also it appears that a huge percentage are from Albania (a European country last time I looked).

Not what I found. 

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

Nobody is saying Lineker cannot have opinions. Just that he should not be pushing those political opinions to 8m twitter followers. And it isn't even that he has to be 100% impartial. He could avoid being intemperate though, comparisons with Nazi Germany are way over the top. Apparently someone among BBC news staff has called the Tories racists and facists. Sunak and Braverman racists... er spot the deliberate error? The problem at the BBC is that it is so caught up in its own media bubble that it just cannot understand how biased it is.  

 

 

But has been pointed out, Lineker said the language used was similar to the language used by the nazis in the 30s. 

Andrew Bridgen made comments that compared the vaccine rollout to the holocaust, with a direct comparison that it was the worst thing since that happened. Similar cases, but to look closer, Lineker is only talking about language used. 

And for i-Ram, I don't have any direct quotes for you, and I'm not that interested to go looking. But I can provide some context from the twitter account from the Auschwitz Memorial. 

There's a lot of competing thoughts in this thread. 

Some people seem to be happy because they don't like Lineker, so less commentary from him is good. 

Some people don't want any commentary, so everyone walking out in sympathy is good. 

Some people question his moral position, which is a legitimate point, but doesn't change the argument about what is acceptable and what isn't. 

Some people are questioning whether a presenter should be impartial or not. I'd argue it isn't possible to be 100% impartial, in the same way that we can't have a conversation about covid, or Shamima Begum, or food bank sponsorship, without there being some politics involved. You can't talk about big stuff totally neutrally. 

My personal opinion is, as long as presenters don't talk about dehumanising people, as long as we're challenging authority and not challenging the rights of people to exist, I'm not against them having an opinion. 

Some of the conversations leave an unpleasant taste in my mouth, but I'm aware that it is legitimate to talk about these things. Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda seems inhuman to me, but there's a legitimate conversation to be had. If you're talking about torpedoing the boats in the channel, gtfo. 

And I'm not hypocritical about the problem on the British left regarding antisemitism. There's a problem in left wing politics with anti Jewish sentiment, but it's not possible to have a proper conversation about Israel without the mud being slung. Questioning the role of Israel in World Politics is acceptable. Denying Jewish people a right to exist, or indiscriminately demonising a whole group of people, gtfo. 

5 minutes ago, cstand said:

Seen reports on Twitter that Harry had lots of money stashed in the Californian SVB bank which has collapsed.

He could have lost millions so all the book profits could be lost.

 

What counts as misuse of social media? 

Defending immigrants seems mild. Suggesting we sink the boats is more the kind of post that I would consider deserving sanction. 

6 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

For all the "progressives" on here, how happy are you to support someone who is trying his damnedest to avoid paying tax when even if he paid it he'd have far more that most of us on here could dream of?

I think as Derby fans we should be really careful about taking the moral high road regards paying the full amount of tax. 

Clearly there's only one guy for the job.