BaaLocks

"The best way to scare a Tory is to read and get rich" - Mother / Idles
This banal suggestion that just because you are left wing means you want to live in poverty is straight out of cloud cuckoo land. That you have somehow betrayed your morals because you don't want your £30m to go to support those who have taken billions out of the system via schemes such as PPE contracts (to name one example), in preference to their being held up for their own wrong doing.
I live in a nice house, not as nice as some but better than many. But it doesn't mean I am now oblidged to sell it and donate the proceeds to those who haven't the same lifetime earnings as me just because I want a more equal society. It's called creating a false opposition, and it's been the bedrock of right wing posturing for decades, if not longer.

No, don't worry - you'll have to be a bit more blunt than that if you want to have a dig ?
I find the 'hate' against Lineker really surprising, I had no idea there was such bile against him until this episode. I have always thought he seperates himself pretty well, if you only want to hear his views on football then don't follow his personal account on Twitter. I also find it really surprising (been an education, every day's a school day) that he makes one comment on the tone of government messaging and a week later he's a tax dodger who does nothing of any help and favours immigrants over homeless on our streets. 
I'm with you on tax btw, but I have no different view on him than I have on Rishi Sunak heating his swimming pool with money his wife garnered via her non-dom status or Jimmy Carr paying accountants he can afford to save money we don't have. It's not political for me, it's not where you came from - if we continue to allow the gap between the richest and the poorest to widen then we are in for trouble. Interestingly, without wanting to cross pollute this thread with the one on Ukraine that I have chosen to avoid now for a few months, history tells us that the single biggest leveller of society is large and sustained war. First World War was a great example, Hundred Years War in the Middle Ages another. Rich end up funding the conflict, poor end up getting paid to fight rather than grow their masters business, the gap closes. Every (nuclear) cloud and all that....

Do I infer from this that the point is that if I say I live in a nice house - good luck me - then the same logic applies for what country I was born in? Didn't have your sperm and egg say hello to each other in Helmand province - good luck you? I get the point, and it's a good challenge.
But my point above is that I can live in a nice house but still be left wing, still enjoy the benefit of my labour (small L) and still expect my government to do more, to be better. And I can still argue and expect greater equality without having to be the first to lead on making that happen by giving up my hard earned savings while others in better positions stand by and watch. I don't think anyone is asking for reparations to the point of absolute communism.
Same with asylum seekers and migrants. I might recognize that the ultimate solution is to invest in their countries so they have the same opportunities, infrastructure and standard of living as I enjoy. Given many are in this situation thanks to the centuries of harm caused to them by colonial powers like the UK, France and the US it can be suggested that is the ultimate path forward. Like it or not, we are a large part of their problem.
But we do know, at least I think I do, that isn't really workable so in the meantime we can do at least something by offering safe refuge and at least a modicum of support to those that need our help most. I feel oblidged to caveat that last sentence to say that doesn't mean we open the floodgates and allow everyone in (as many in support of this bill seem to suggest is the only alternative). Totally agree we need structure and transparency to how we assist but if we want to be seen as anyway near credible on the international stage we must have a properly implemented tolerant and fair asylum and immigration system.
The sad, sad truth is that this isn't too difficult, if it is dealt with as a cross party initiatve and not politicised as a right wing dog whistle in a desperate hope it will magically close a 25% gap in the polls.

Do I infer from this that the point is that if I say I live in a nice house - good luck me - then the same logic applies for what country I was born in? Didn't have your sperm and egg say hello to each other in Helmand province - good luck you? I get the point, and it's a good challenge.
But my point above is that I can live in a nice house but still be left wing, still enjoy the benefit of my labour (small L) and still expect my government to do more, to be better. And I can still argue and expect greater equality without having to be the first to lead on making that happen by giving up my hard earned savings while others in better positions stand by and watch. I don't think anyone is asking for reparations to the point of absolute communism.
Same with asylum seekers and migrants. I might recognize that the ultimate solution is to invest in their countries so they have the same opportunities, infrastructure and standard of living as I enjoy. Given many are in this situation thanks to the centuries of harm caused to them by colonial powers like the UK, France and the US it can be suggested that is the ultimate path forward. Like it or not, we are a large part of their problem.
But we do know, at least I think I do, that isn't really workable so in the meantime we can do at least something by offering safe refuge and at least a modicum of support to those that need our help most. I feel oblidged to caveat that last sentence to say that doesn't mean we open the floodgates and allow everyone in (as many in support of this bill seem to suggest is the only alternative). Totally agree we need structure and transparency to how we assist but if we want to be seen as anyway near credible on the international stage we must have a properly implemented tolerant and fair asylum and immigration system.
The sad, sad truth is that this isn't too difficult, if it is dealt with as a cross party initiatve and not politicised as a right wing dog whistle in a desperate hope it will magically close a 25% gap in the polls.

Do I infer from this that the point is that if I say I live in a nice house - good luck me - then the same logic applies for what country I was born in? Didn't have your sperm and egg say hello to each other in Helmand province - good luck you? I get the point, and it's a good challenge.
But my point above is that I can live in a nice house but still be left wing, still enjoy the benefit of my labour (small L) and still expect my government to do more, to be better. And I can still argue and expect greater equality without having to be the first to lead on making that happen by giving up my hard earned savings while others in better positions stand by and watch. I don't think anyone is asking for reparations to the point of absolute communism.
Same with asylum seekers and migrants. I might recognize that the ultimate solution is to invest in their countries so they have the same opportunities, infrastructure and standard of living as I enjoy. Given many are in this situation thanks to the centuries of harm caused to them by colonial powers like the UK, France and the US it can be suggested that is the ultimate path forward. Like it or not, we are a large part of their problem.
But we do know, at least I think I do, that isn't really workable so in the meantime we can do at least something by offering safe refuge and at least a modicum of support to those that need our help most. I feel oblidged to caveat that last sentence to say that doesn't mean we open the floodgates and allow everyone in (as many in support of this bill seem to suggest is the only alternative). Totally agree we need structure and transparency to how we assist but if we want to be seen as anyway near credible on the international stage we must have a properly implemented tolerant and fair asylum and immigration system.
The sad, sad truth is that this isn't too difficult, if it is dealt with as a cross party initiatve and not politicised as a right wing dog whistle in a desperate hope it will magically close a 25% gap in the polls.

What do you mean by "people like him"? Are there people not like him (outside government) who you are happy to have tell the rest of the country what they should be doing or is your preference that nobody has right to question anything?
What do you mean by "telling the rest of the country what they should be doing". Don't think he told anyone to do anything, he just suggested how he viewed government policy. There was no instruction there within, least of all to the rest of the country. He observed, nothing more.
Not sure what you mean by "what he is preaching about will have absolutely no effect on his life". May I beg to differ, his point was very clearly trying to address something that affects his, and all our, lives. Namely his observation that the policies our elected government are trying to put into place, that we all as members of a democratic society are within our rights to address (unless our employers specifically request, and get our agreement, to not do), are 'immeasurably cruel'.
So, in conclusion, all you seem to be taking exception to is your perception of something that - when considered - didn't actually happen. As I said before, a false opposition.

What makes people froth at the mouth is not political leaning but that wealthy people can afford to employ people who allow them to swerve taxes and duties that the rest of us pay simply because we cannot afford said experts. Same for Amazon and Google compared to Barry the Butcher on the High Street. If I had the opportunity to do that I most certainly would, even if it meant I retained control of where my support could be best applied, funding and supporting charitable causes rather than handing it to corrupt politicians to spend it on £800 a roll wallpaper or private jets to Australia.

"The best way to scare a Tory is to read and get rich" - Mother / Idles
This banal suggestion that just because you are left wing means you want to live in poverty is straight out of cloud cuckoo land. That you have somehow betrayed your morals because you don't want your £30m to go to support those who have taken billions out of the system via schemes such as PPE contracts (to name one example), in preference to their being held up for their own wrong doing.
I live in a nice house, not as nice as some but better than many. But it doesn't mean I am now oblidged to sell it and donate the proceeds to those who haven't the same lifetime earnings as me just because I want a more equal society. It's called creating a false opposition, and it's been the bedrock of right wing posturing for decades, if not longer.

"The best way to scare a Tory is to read and get rich" - Mother / Idles
This banal suggestion that just because you are left wing means you want to live in poverty is straight out of cloud cuckoo land. That you have somehow betrayed your morals because you don't want your £30m to go to support those who have taken billions out of the system via schemes such as PPE contracts (to name one example), in preference to their being held up for their own wrong doing.
I live in a nice house, not as nice as some but better than many. But it doesn't mean I am now oblidged to sell it and donate the proceeds to those who haven't the same lifetime earnings as me just because I want a more equal society. It's called creating a false opposition, and it's been the bedrock of right wing posturing for decades, if not longer.

"The best way to scare a Tory is to read and get rich" - Mother / Idles
This banal suggestion that just because you are left wing means you want to live in poverty is straight out of cloud cuckoo land. That you have somehow betrayed your morals because you don't want your £30m to go to support those who have taken billions out of the system via schemes such as PPE contracts (to name one example), in preference to their being held up for their own wrong doing.
I live in a nice house, not as nice as some but better than many. But it doesn't mean I am now oblidged to sell it and donate the proceeds to those who haven't the same lifetime earnings as me just because I want a more equal society. It's called creating a false opposition, and it's been the bedrock of right wing posturing for decades, if not longer.

Found a real gem on YouTube, a Yugoslavian comedy from 1980 Ko to tamo peva (Who's Singin' Over There)
Somewhere in the Serbian countryside in the spring of 1941 folks board a bus headed for Belgrade.  What follows is wicked comedy.  i love road trip films and this one is now my favorite.  There are some very strange and rather annoying sounds while the opening credits are rolling, but i soon forgave that oddity.  A 10/10 from me, a masterpiece.
 
 

Last time I went I wouldn't say the doctor was enthusiastic but when the report came back it said I needed two fillings and a crown.

Last time I went I wouldn't say the doctor was enthusiastic but when the report came back it said I needed two fillings and a crown.

The very interesting point for me in this is that Gary Lineker is not employed by the BBC so you are bang on the money, unless it explicitly says in his contract that he is not allowed to express views on his personal account on certain topics I don't really know what they are trying to achieve. At the moment, with the release of this statement, the optics look really, really bad for the BBC.
Couple it with the announcement earlier in the day not to air an episode of the new David Attenborough documentary for fear it will cause a right wing backlash and the optics are seriously out of kilter.
Add to that the fact the chairman of the BBC made (to quote the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee) "serious errors of judgment" facilitating an £800k loan to a certain Boris Johnson and you have to conclude this is a question of national interest how our state broadcaster is acting in repeatadly flawed ways.

The very interesting point for me in this is that Gary Lineker is not employed by the BBC so you are bang on the money, unless it explicitly says in his contract that he is not allowed to express views on his personal account on certain topics I don't really know what they are trying to achieve. At the moment, with the release of this statement, the optics look really, really bad for the BBC.
Couple it with the announcement earlier in the day not to air an episode of the new David Attenborough documentary for fear it will cause a right wing backlash and the optics are seriously out of kilter.
Add to that the fact the chairman of the BBC made (to quote the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee) "serious errors of judgment" facilitating an £800k loan to a certain Boris Johnson and you have to conclude this is a question of national interest how our state broadcaster is acting in repeatadly flawed ways.

The very interesting point for me in this is that Gary Lineker is not employed by the BBC so you are bang on the money, unless it explicitly says in his contract that he is not allowed to express views on his personal account on certain topics I don't really know what they are trying to achieve. At the moment, with the release of this statement, the optics look really, really bad for the BBC.
Couple it with the announcement earlier in the day not to air an episode of the new David Attenborough documentary for fear it will cause a right wing backlash and the optics are seriously out of kilter.
Add to that the fact the chairman of the BBC made (to quote the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee) "serious errors of judgment" facilitating an £800k loan to a certain Boris Johnson and you have to conclude this is a question of national interest how our state broadcaster is acting in repeatadly flawed ways.

The very interesting point for me in this is that Gary Lineker is not employed by the BBC so you are bang on the money, unless it explicitly says in his contract that he is not allowed to express views on his personal account on certain topics I don't really know what they are trying to achieve. At the moment, with the release of this statement, the optics look really, really bad for the BBC.
Couple it with the announcement earlier in the day not to air an episode of the new David Attenborough documentary for fear it will cause a right wing backlash and the optics are seriously out of kilter.
Add to that the fact the chairman of the BBC made (to quote the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee) "serious errors of judgment" facilitating an £800k loan to a certain Boris Johnson and you have to conclude this is a question of national interest how our state broadcaster is acting in repeatadly flawed ways.

Correct, I can only blame myself for not checking, and predicted spelling for being lax, and lazy.??

Last time I went I wouldn't say the doctor was enthusiastic but when the report came back it said I needed two fillings and a crown.

I was going to go for this fella, that's Snowed-on. 

BBC are to talk to Gary Lineker about his tweets. What people say outside the workplace, on their own personal accounts, as long as it is not discriminatory or abusive, is completely their own business - no matter what it is that they say. Particularly if they are completely unrelated to the capacity in which they are employed (e.g. Laura Kuennsberg talking about football). And if you have a problem with media stars using social media then you put it in their contract that they are not allowed to have a personal account. But you don't selectively speak to one person just because what they say irritates people in high places.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64883655

BBC are to talk to Gary Lineker about his tweets. What people say outside the workplace, on their own personal accounts, as long as it is not discriminatory or abusive, is completely their own business - no matter what it is that they say. Particularly if they are completely unrelated to the capacity in which they are employed (e.g. Laura Kuennsberg talking about football). And if you have a problem with media stars using social media then you put it in their contract that they are not allowed to have a personal account. But you don't selectively speak to one person just because what they say irritates people in high places.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64883655

Last time I went I wouldn't say the doctor was enthusiastic but when the report came back it said I needed two fillings and a crown.

Last time I went I wouldn't say the doctor was enthusiastic but when the report came back it said I needed two fillings and a crown.