Gary Lineker

[Crewton]

Lineker seems to have angered allot of Jewish anti-antisemitism campaigners by making what they see as a glib comparison with Germany in the 1930s (as they were similarly angry about Bridgen endorsing that "biggest crime since the Holocaust" tweet). They believe that such comparisons trivialise and diminish the Holocaust in the publics minds. This demonstrates what a tricky area he's stumbled into. 

I personally think that if he'd compared people who want to stop migrants reaching the UK with those who opposed refugees, particularly Jews, being granted asylum in the UK from Nazi Germany, he might have at least avoided angering allot of Jews. I think it would still have annoyed the rest though. 

[Abu Derby]

The BBC would save a few million pounds in wages if they got rid of “look at me” Lineker and all of his cronies. MOTD was so much better without his sanctimonious prattlings. 

[May Contain Nuts]

49 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

In Lineker's case he is not a news presenter so there is a lower bar. Against that, he is very closely associated with the BBC in a way that Alan Sugar is not. BBC hired Sugar to be the British equivalent of Trump in the Apprentice so they can hardly try stopping him from being what they hired him for.

What a load of guff! Pun intended.

The BBC didn't hire Sugar as the equivalent to Trump the political figure, they hired him to be equivalent of Trump the outspoken businessman.

NBC sacked Trump from The Apprentice USA when he made derogatory comments as part of his electoral campaign - clearly they thought his association with their network was was pretty close! - so if you're going to be drawing that comparison then perhaps the BBC could and should 'try stopping him' airing his political views? 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Kokosnuss

[cstand]

11 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

This from the BBC's own website
 

"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC.

"We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."
 

So Lineker still not guilty then? I don't think there is any doubt he is in breach it is just a matter of what is a proportionate response from the BBC. 

With viewing figures up 500,000 for MOTD it will strengthen the BBCs response.
In 2020 Lineker agreed a pay cut and curb tweets, depends what’s in his contract though.

I know what’s in my contract  I would have been suspended pending an investigation if found guilty I would be sacked with no compensation.

Edited March 12, 2023 by cstand

[AndyinLiverpool]

5 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

This from the BBC's own website
 

"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC.

"We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."
 

So Lineker still not guilty then? I don't think there is any doubt he is in breach it is just a matter of what is a proportionate response from the BBC. 

According to the quoted statements, it's hard to see how anybody could be guilty of anything, such is the vagueness of the language.

The BBC has been dumbing down for years but if it seriously believes that people might mistake Lineker's words as representing BBC policy then it really doesn't have a lot of respect for its audience, does it?

[G STAR RAM]

27 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Not sure why you are suggesting that anyone would need to be present at the rallies to offer valid and / or factual commentary? There's buildings full of film records of speeches from the period, millions of documents transcribed and saved for display in museums and the like, likewise banners and posters. History gets recorded and who would be better informed than the offspring of those who were taken to the camps anyway, bar said historians? Are you suggesting this woman is not credible as that's getting disturbingly close to holocaust denial territory, is it not? 

FWIW, the Nazi's weren't 'goosestepping about' shouting kill the Juden right from the off. That's the whole point. It was much more insidious than that, but still constituted politics of hate. This is the point made by Lineker, whether you choose to acknowledge the fact or not.

Here's a the first few links from a Google search, but there are 10s of thousands of sources for relevant material should you wish to DYOR. 

https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/nazi-propaganda-1

https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/propaganda

https://www.dw.com/en/how-the-nazis-used-poster-art-as-propaganda/a-55751640

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43965202

Was just making the point that the evidence of something born 10 years after the evidence being discussed would carry no more weight than someone on the DCFC forum.

Think nobody has been able to provide @i-Ramwith the evidence he is looking for of the Conservative Government using language comparable to that used in 1930s Germany.

[Bob The Badger]

22 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Reading this, it seems someone simply has a problem with the word invasion - an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place. I had better be a bit more careful using that word in the future then ? Oh and trafficked and transported. Better avoid those too.  It’s a minefield. Minefield, hang on a minute is that ok? Yeah, I think so. It’s a minefield.
The problem is fast becoming that anyone and everyone now seems to be finding indignation, and wants to point fingers, and label people, on the basis of a single word. Context no longer seems to apply. I am going to withdraw from this thread before I use inappropriate single words. Enjoy it guys, until it is closed.

This entire debate is because of language and Lineker comparing the Government's language to that of Germany in the 30s.

And he was right to do that because there are some very strong similarities.

You're looking at this through the lens of what happened after in Germany. Nobody is saying the Tories are about to march into Poland or commit genocide, but they are using similar language to shift focus.

You should check out Don't think of an Elephant by George Lakoff. You may learn a bit about how language just like that used by Braverman is deliberately used to deflect attention and create fear. 

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Fair play to an 83 year old who can remember the language used by the Nazis before she was even born.

Think that has firmly put @i-Ramin his place.

Yeah, if only there was some way of knowing what was being said by the Germans, but it's a total mystery.

Love the way you dismiss a holocaust survivor mate because she has only read, watched, and heard what the people who slaughtered her people said and wasn't old enough to have been there in person.

 

[Tyler Durden]

7 minutes ago, cstand said:

With viewing figures up 500,000 for MOTD it will strengthen the BBCs response.
In 2020 Lineker agreed a pay cut and curb tweets, depends what’s in his contract though.

I know what’s in my contract  I would have been suspended pending an investigation if found guilty I would be sacked with no compensation.

I wonder how many of those additional 500k viewers tuned in just out of idle curiousity to see what the format was like without pundits, or just knew Lineker and his cohorts wouldn't be on so would be s far more palatable experience for them. 

[cstand]

4 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

I wonder how many of those additional 500k viewers tuned in just out of idle curiousity to see what the format was like without pundits, or just knew Lineker and his cohorts wouldn't be on so would be s far more palatable experience for them. 

Good question see what happens next week because goody two shoes will not back down.

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, Bob The Badger said:

This entire debate is because of language and Lineker comparing the Government's language to that of Germany in the 30s.

And he was right to do that because there are some very strong similarities.

You're looking at this through the lens of what happened after in Germany. Nobody is saying the Tories are about to march into Poland or commit genocide, but they are using similar language to shift focus.

You should check out Don't think of an Elephant by George Lakoff. You may learn a bit about how language just like that used by Braverman is deliberately used to deflect attention and create fear. 

Yeah, if only there was some way of knowing what was being said by the Germans, but it's a total mystery.

Love the way you dismiss a holocaust survivor mate because she has only read, watched, and heard what the people who slaughtered her people said and wasn't old enough to have been there in person.

 

Not dismissed her, just said her comments carry no more weight than anyone else's opinion who wasn't there to witness it.

Out of interest, how do you know what she has read, watched and heard what the people said? 

For all of the people saying Bravermans language is comparabld with that used in 1930s Germany, nobody has been able to provide any good examples yet...

Edited March 12, 2023 by G STAR RAM

[Crewton]

How times change : 

 

 

[cstand]

31 minutes ago, Crewton said:

How times change : 

 

 

Think he signed another contract in 2020 with new T&Cs

Edited March 12, 2023 by cstand

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

According to the quoted statements, it's hard to see how anybody could be guilty of anything, such is the vagueness of the language.

The BBC has been dumbing down for years but if it seriously believes that people might mistake Lineker's words as representing BBC policy then it really doesn't have a lot of respect for its audience, does it?

You think Lineker had avoided taking sides? He is in clear and multiple breach of BBC guidelines. Even Mark Thompson a left leaning ex BBC boss had said it’s a breach. The only defence I can think of is some sort of public interest or whistleblowing defence. 

[Anag Ram]

Could someone on Love Island please tweet something controversial? Please? Please?

[PistoldPete]

32 minutes ago, Crewton said:

How times change : 

 

 

If Lineker was a Tory he’d have wanted Corbyn to stay as Labour  leader as long as possible. 

[therealhantsram]

1 hour ago, cstand said:

With viewing figures up 500,000 for MOTD it will strengthen the BBCs response.
 

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.

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, Kokosnuss said:

What a load of guff! Pun intended.

The BBC didn't hire Sugar as the equivalent to Trump the political figure, they hired him to be equivalent of Trump the outspoken businessman.

NBC sacked Trump from The Apprentice USA when he made derogatory comments as part of his electoral campaign - clearly they thought his association with their network was was pretty close! - so if you're going to be drawing that comparison then perhaps the BBC could and should 'try stopping him' airing his political views? 

Well whatever you think .. Sugar is a businessman and a member of the House of Lords who just happens to appear on the BBC as well. Lineker is a sports presenter and nothing else. Sometimes works for Bt sport and that’s it.. mostly he is BBC. 

[cstand]

1 minute ago, therealhantsram said:

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.

No need to look it had no presenters very easy to understand.

Same as watching highlights on YouTube only difference is you get to choose the games you want to watch.

 

[PistoldPete]

6 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

If Lineker was a Tory he’d have wanted Corbyn to stay as Labour  leader as long as possible. 

Except I enjoyed the highlights especially seeing Forest lose. Oh actually I see what you mean, Forest season is a car crash waiting to happen. 

[Bob The Badger]

30 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Not dismissed her, just said her comments carry no more weight than anyone else's opinion who wasn't there to witness it.

Out of interest, how do you know what she has read, watched and heard what the people said? 

For all of the people saying Bravermans language is comparabld with that used in 1930s Germany, nobody has been able to provide any good examples yet...

You actually said that the opinion of a woman who was a holocaust survivor carried no more weight than that of somebody in s DCFC forum, only you went back in and edited it because even you realised how ridiculous you sounded.

How do I know she knows more about it because her family were murdered?

You're right I don't.

I just kind of jumped to the conclusion that somebody who had their family murdered by a genocidal regime would know more about it than the likes of you and me.

And you have had examples of what Braverman said and how the Tories have systematically blamed immigrants for problems that have little or nothing to do with them.

The Tories keep battering the Stop the Boats message because it instils fear and positions those people as the enemy in exactly the same way as Hitler positioned the Jews as the enemy

The Nazis blamed the Jews for the economic and social issues that had nothing to do with them and the Tories are doing the same to illegal immigrants and people are falling for it. I guess they are, largely speaking, the same people that fell for the lies about Brexit.