GboroRam

I got it from reading it mate but you're right, you said it in a different comment.
And you find it boring because you fell for the lies about the NHS, the oven ready deals, the better trade deals, the no increases in red tape, and Ireland not being an issue.  
It's best to feign boredom when you've been duped because the alternative is to question you're own way of thinking and belief system and that's really hard.  
 
 

It would be classed as a possible hate speech towards the Jewish community.
People need to understand it’s about the language he used, not the fact he was criticising the government.
 
 

This is nonsense. Anyone can see that the viewing figures were up for the same reason that everyone slows down to rubberneck an accident on the motorway.

Back of the net

The ones who were there are dead. That's kind of the point of genocide. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

I never watched it, but almost did to see what was mentioned and how they did it. I imagine lots of people did the same.

Nauseating deflection. 

I think you are oversimplifying matters to be honest. This is no longer a single issue of should Lineker have tweeted what he did.
The BBC have mishandled this so badly it has now become a 'how much influence does the government, to which multiple senior figures in the BBC are affiliated, have over our state broadcaster' issue.
The can of worms is open and it doesn't look like anyone is going to be able to get the lid back on any time soon.

Many people complaining about a liberal metropolitan elite controlling the media, ignoring the fact that large media organisations with increasingly large links to the political party in charge - in particular, party donors - portray the government favourably, with criticism from employees silenced.
Anyway, enough about the book I'm reading about the Nazi Party's use of the media in their rise to power. Linekar obviously has no idea what he's talking about.

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. 

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. 

Is that the same Question Time where the presenter mitigated the domestic abuse by a former Prime Minister’s father by saying it was actually only the once that he did it? Or a different one?

Ah yes, the anti Tory bias. Lead by the famously left leaning chairman of the BBC who used to manage Sunak and helped Johnson get an 800k loan. Or the very left leaning Robbie Gibb who was the former director of communications for the Tories and whose brother is a Tory MP. Or perhaps the current director general who once stood as a Tory councillour. 
If it looks like a turd and smells like a turd it's probably a turd.

Opened up a bit of a can of worms this. They've let people such as Lord Sugar speak openly about their politics with no issue, but have clamped down on Lineker. Either all of it is okay, or none of it is. They've managed it the worst way possible here. That being said, it is generally unwise to invoke Godwin's law if you are trying to make a nuanced point. 

Champagne socialist is such a nonsense term.
It implies that nobody successful could possibly empathise or support the cause of anyone less fortunate than them. It is designed to invalidate the opinion of anyone that can't be attacked with the 'politics of envy' line.

The national newspapers have got their priorities right again I see. Gary Lineker plastered all over the front pages. Yet there's nowhere near enough pressure and scrutiny from the powers at the media hierarchy about the new immigration policy, which needs far more attention than a BBC presenter.
I'm not his biggest fan, and I definitely don't agree with many of Gary Lineker's opinions. The BBC allowed their presenters to openly criticise Qatar for their human rights problems without any ramifications. Yet because he has questioned his own country's policy on this new immigration law, they've taken him off air until he says sorry. We're quiet happy to allow the berating of other countries, yet if the UK then it's all opinions nailed onto the fence.
I love the idea of the BBC and how they take pride in promoting local issues. Local people still need their voices to be heard. It is a horrible organisation at board room level. They talk about impartial coverage yet they've got 2 board members who are deep in the heart of Conservative politics. How do they expect their presenters to keep the own political opinions to themselves, yet the top of the tree has clear bias towards a certain party.
Good on the other BBC pundits to stand with their friend and colleague.