The support for Gary Lineker should worry ministers – politicalbetting.com

System

The support for Gary Lineker should worry ministers – politicalbetting.com

YouGov on the Lineker comments on the government immigration policies pic.twitter.com/895avkr3w5

Read the full story here

Driver

First!

Too many tweets...

Pagan2

FPT

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Westie said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SouthamObserver said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bigjohnowls said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

Leon said:

SouthamObserver said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

turbotubbs said:

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.

Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.

Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.

He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.

There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.

It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.

Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.

They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.

The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.

I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.

Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.

In a serious question:

How *would* anyone stop the boats?

It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.

That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.

Stopping the boats, if that's your main aim, is pretty simple. A UK asylum centre in Calais and ferry tickets to Dover.

Stopping boats without letting people in another way? Can't help you there.

Is it that simple? Will the Albanians simply give up when rejected at Calais?

Quite possibly. But it reduces the numbers of boat people, which makes it easier to catch and return those who remain.

Part of our problem at the moment is that the rate of people coming in vastly exceeds our state ability to process them.

So the UK is reduced to bloodcurdling threats that it probably can't carry out. Partly human rights law, but partly because the UK state can't reliably carry out anything. Trust me- that tends not to work.

Pitiful

Making asylum easier to claim at Calais - then giving the lucky ones tickets for the Dover Ferry - will just INCREASE the pull factor of Calais

Tens of thousands more will try. What will those that fail then do? Will they think “shit, at least the UK gave me a fair go, oh well, now I’ll head back to Albania/Somalia”

Or will they simply try and cross illegally? As before, but in even greater numbers?

You don’t have an answer which doesn’t make you extremely uncomfortable. So you would rather provide no answer at all. It’s a kind of cowardice

If you provide safe routes, then there is far less argument legally about those who choose not to use them.

Where are we going to deport them? We are incapable of deporting anyone because liberal lawyers go mad and Gary lineker calls you goebbels and everyone is pathetically spineless

And if we did start actually deporting those that failed the Calais asylum test then they’d all go back to destroying their documents and using the dinghies

It’s just another pitifuf non answer. It is pathetic

Liberal lawyers going mad or staying sane does not change the law.

If you want the policy objectives that the govt is pushing with their policy you need to be angry with the govt for not leaving the refugee convention not liberal lawyers.

I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.

However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.

If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.

You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!

Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?

If so, then its legal, is it not?

Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.

Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.

Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.

Have you heard of international law?

Yes. Its a bad joke.

Parliament can override international law.

It can't override it, it can legislate to make it unenforceable in the UK. The UK then lives with the consequences of that because the international law still exists. In the case of the illegal immigration legislation, though, the government is saying it is not acting contrary to international law or seeking to make it unenforceable.

We live with the consequences then, if that is what we choose to do, that is a matter for politics not lawyers.

If Parliament passes a Bill overriding international law domestically, eg by legalising cannabis which I wholeheartedly support in violation of international law, then there are no international courts that can override the UK Parliament. Nor should there be.

Or the UN Declaration on Human Rights, that asserts the rights of all human beings to live in dignity regardless of ethnic origin, or the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Or the Geneva Conventions. Do you think the sovereign body in any sovereign country ought to be able to renege on any international law it wishes to, so long as it only does so domestically? So for example the Brazilian parliament could decide to exterminate the Yanomami people and they shouldn't be held responsible before an international court if they did?

Yes I 100% think any sovereign body ought to be able to renege on any international law it wishes to do so, domestically.

If the Brazilian Parliament chose to exterminate a people then that would be a matter for international relations to resolve, not lawyers or courts. Just as China's acts of genocide against the Rohingya and others.

A genuinely robust international legal system that punishes and deters such atrocities, regardless of who commits them and where they happen, is a challenging aspiration, but it's a bit odd to say it isn't a worthwhile one.

Its not a worthwhile one, because the meaning of atrocity changes. The problem is what's good today can be awful in the future, or vice-versa/

The law should be a living, breathing, and most importantly evolving body - which is what Parliament is for.

If you go back just ten years it was illegal for two men to marry each other in Scotland.
If you go back ~fifty years it was illegal for two men to love each other and could result in imprisonment.
If you go back hundreds of years, it could result in execution.

You operate as if international law is "good" so should be set in stone, but the law has never been that way. Ossifying laws in stone is how you end up with the madness that is the US Second Amendment and routine mass murder in schools. Ossifying laws in stone is how you end up with gays being stoned to death.

If an international law signed in the 50s put a prohibition on same sex marriage, then I think Parliament would be well within its rights to say that notwithstanding the law we are legalising it. If an international law signed in the 18th century had a Second Amendment style ruling then following Dunblane I'd think that Parliament is perfectly entitled to say that the law needs to change.

We should seek to tackle atrocities internationally, but that needs to be done via international relations, not laws locking in the views of the past to be enforced in the future.

A robust and dynamic international legal system then. One which moves with the times as all good legal systems should. To inter alia punish and deter atrocities. As I say, most odd to not at least grant this to be a worthwhile aspiration. Still, you're you. With your reverence for the Nation State.

It is not a reverence for the Nation State, it is a reverence for democracy. Democracy is attached to the Nation State.

Our legal system evolves with the times due to Parliament, and we have routine elections to Parliament.

If you want international law to evolve with the times and not be ossified to the past saying that cannabis must be illegal/gays must be stoned/second amendment etc then without a global Parliament how do you achieve that?

And if there is a global Parliament, then haven't you just globalised all the issues you decry with the Nation State?

If a local council in a deeply conservative part of the country wished to ban homosexuality in accordance with local demand we would say to them and their voters, "Nope, sorry, not on. There's a higher law against you doing that."

IOW some things are too important to be left to the voters. It's therefore not just about democracy. It's about where is the best place in an ideal world - since I did say 'aspiration' remember - for certain fundamental human rights to be protected.

Asserting this is always and forever the nation state, ie there can never be anything so important it can't be left to voters at this level of aggregation, is illogical. It comes from, as I say, revering the nation state itself. Which is what you do, what many people do tbf, odd as it might appear to me.

A local Council is not a country, so can not deprive people of national rights. That is the nation protecting them, yes.

If a country wants to ban homosexuality it can. I would absolutely deplore that, I would be against that, I would be disgusted - but it would be able to do so and many do.

The way to prevent that is to have educated voters who would vote out any Government so repellent, not rely upon flawed and failed international institutions to do so.

Nothing is too important to be left to the voters. Only the voters protect our rights.

You're still not explaining why (as a long term aspiration) we wouldn't want basic human rights to be protected at a level higher than the nation state.

You seem to revere it - the nation state - and I find this odd.

I've explained it repeatedly. 😕

The higher the authority the more dangerous it is. The more out of touch, the more remote, the more inflexible. If we had a solitary global government with solitary global rights we'd probably still have abortion illegal as its murder, homosexuality outlawed etc - why would you welcome that?

You seem to think global = good but there's no evidence for that and actually global changes in liberalism seriously lag forerunning nation states becoming more liberal. The UK to this day is more liberal than most of the world, so if you want a global standard you either want our standards to worsen to the lowest common denominator, or you want to be an imperialist and compel other nations to our standards against their wishes.

If higher necessarily means more dangerous re protecting human rights why don't you argue for this power to reside at (say) local government level?

The point is we get to vote in or out the people who makes the rules, we wouldn't get that with a supranational body and would just have to take their pronouncements. The fault in your thinking is believing that any supranational body would agree with all your views when it almost certainly wouldn't. Somethings would not be legal that you think ought to be and other things you think shouldn't be legal would be. Which was why I asked you if you would trust finns, danes and romanians to be on this supranational body....a question you didn't answer

slade

Is this a first for me? Three by-elections tomorrow: SNP defence in Edinburgh, Lab defences in Hounslow and Haringey.

Malmesbury

On Nordstream

https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2023-03/nordstream-2-ukraine-anschlag


Specifically, according to information from ARD-Hauptstadtstudio,Kontraste, SWR and ZEIT, the investigators have succeeded in identifying the boat that was allegedly used for the secret operation. It is said to be a yacht that was rented by a company based in Poland, which apparently belongs to two Ukrainians. According to the investigation, the secret operation at sea is said to have been carried out by a team of six people. It is said to have been five men and one woman. According to this, the group consisted of a captain, two divers, two diving assistants and a doctor

:

The yacht was subsequently returned to the owner in uncleaned condition. According to the research, the investigators were able to detect traces of explosives on the table in the cabin.

slade

slade said:

Is this a first for me? Three by-elections tomorrow: SNP defence in Edinburgh, Lab defences in Hounslow and Haringey.

Pipped at the post!

Selebian

slade said:

Is this a first for me? Three by-elections tomorrow: SNP defence in Edinburgh, Lab defences in Hounslow and Haringey.

I hope so - you'll be wearing yourself out if you make a habit of fighting three by-elections simultaneously in three different places for two different parties

mwadams

I'd be very interested to see what proportion of the 33% agree with him, if any. I suspect this is more reflective of the subject matter than the delivery.

noneoftheabove

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

Driver

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

Selebian

mwadams said:

I'd be very interested to see what proportion of the 33% agree with him, if any. I suspect this is more reflective of the subject matter than the delivery.

I think he's a bit of a tit, but I've no issue with him making public pronouncements on politics or whatever else, as long as it's not on air at the BBC.

To take someone with different political views, I also had no issue with Clarkson writing newspaper columns while also on Top Gear (assuming he was doing so at the same time?).

Chris

This must be very vexing for Richard Sharp. If he didn't pay good money for the job, he reportedly arranged for good money to be paid.

And now the government seems to think he's in their pocket!

noneoftheabove

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

Its a should question rather than a contractual question being discussed. I am sure HR forums are available somewhere.

Driver

noneoftheabove said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

Its a should question rather than a contractual question being discussed. I am sure HR forums are available somewhere.

You can argue that the rules should be different.

However, they aren't - he knew the rules when he signed his contract and therefore questions of freedom of speech don't apply; he's willingly sold his freedom of speech to the Corporation for the duration of his contract.

WillG

Absolutely no issue with Lineker expressing political views I disagree with. But comparing limitations on asylum policy with the systematic state violence carried out by Hitler's Germany is an insult to Jewish people everywhere. Millions were gassed to death in ovens for fuck's sake.

JSpring

I seem to recall a poll being posted on here the other day that showed support for the government's migrant plans being higher than this. But that wasn't spun as good news for the government.

StuartDickson

……

kjh

Selebian said:

mwadams said:

I'd be very interested to see what proportion of the 33% agree with him, if any. I suspect this is more reflective of the subject matter than the delivery.

I think he's a bit of a tit, but I've no issue with him making public pronouncements on politics or whatever else, as long as it's not on air at the BBC.

To take someone with different political views, I also had no issue with Clarkson writing newspaper columns while also on Top Gear (assuming he was doing so at the same time?).

Agree, other than 'he's a bit of a tit' bit as I don't think he is. I am a fan of both Lineker and Clarkson in all of what they do. They both make me smile with the comments they make. I enjoy the exaggeration.

TOPPING

As noted before, voters have consistently voted for parties which have promised to crack down on immigration.

I don't much like the policy nor the current Home Secretary but they are delivering what the people have told them they want delivered.

There is no short term magic wand to wave to make it go away so the govt is left with having to go crass.

It is the language that, like Gary, I object to and, @WillG, it absolutely is the language of the 1930s talking about aliens and traitors who don't support the proposed action. They seem to be actively casting those who want a different approach to the asylum seeking problem as agitating against the country and unpatriotic.

That is 1930s all over.

Edit: not delivering, announcing that they want to deliver...

Carnyx

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

Stuartinromford

StuartDickson said:

……

Matt has the advantage of a contract where he can say pretty much whatever he likes. (The contract in question being the one where the Editor of the Telegraph has to offer his resignation if Matt goes anywhere else.)

And he knows how to use it.

StuartDickson

slade said:

Is this a first for me? Three by-elections tomorrow: SNP defence in Edinburgh, Lab defences in Hounslow and Haringey.

No.

By the way, the Edinburgh by-election is hardly an “SNP defence” when we came a very poor second last time around:

Liberal Democrats 49.8%
SNP 18.7%
Con 16%
Lab 7.8%
Grn 6.9%
Family 0.8%

Nailed on SLD win, meaning they’ll have all three councillors in the ward.

Selebian

kjh said:

Selebian said:

mwadams said:

I'd be very interested to see what proportion of the 33% agree with him, if any. I suspect this is more reflective of the subject matter than the delivery.

I think he's a bit of a tit, but I've no issue with him making public pronouncements on politics or whatever else, as long as it's not on air at the BBC.

To take someone with different political views, I also had no issue with Clarkson writing newspaper columns while also on Top Gear (assuming he was doing so at the same time?).

Agree, other than 'he's a bit of a tit' bit as I don't think he is. I am a fan of both Lineker and Clarkson in all of what they do. They both make me smile with the comments they make. I enjoy the exaggeration.

Well, I think Clarkson is more of a tit.

But... I like tits (I refer to blue, great, coal and long-tailed, obviously).

Chris

WillG said:

Absolutely no issue with Lineker expressing political views I disagree with. But comparing limitations on asylum policy with the systematic state violence carried out by Hitler's Germany is an insult to Jewish people everywhere. Millions were gassed to death in ovens for fuck's sake.

How is it that people can't read simple English and see that it's Braverman's language that Lineker compared to that of Germany in the 1930s?

Perhaps we'd do better to try communicating in grunts?

Sunil_Prasannan

"Gary is just another LEFTY LINEKER standing in our way!"

TheScreamingEagles

SNP Cabinet Minister Shona Robison accuses Kate Forbes of "trashing" the SG and "undermining" Nicola Sturgeon. Also:

- demanded "full transparency" on Forbes' views on abortion
- said she would have to think long and hard about serving in her Gov

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1633485235500326913

Carnyx

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

Or for that matter, Mr D. Ross's [edit] second job as a footie referee.

StuartDickson

Roger said:

StuartDickson said:

London
Lab 68%
Con 15%
Grn 7%
LD 6%
UKIP 3%
Ref 1%

Rest of South
Con 41%
Lab 34%
LD 12%
Grn 6%
Ref 4%
UKIP 2%

Midlands
Lab 56%
Con 29%
LD 7%
Grn 5%
Ref 3%

North
Lab 53%
Con 34%
Ref 9%
LD 3%
Grn 1%

Wales
Lab 41%
Con 24%
LD 14%
Grn 13%
PC 3%
Ref 1%

Scotland
SNP 46%
Lab 30%
Con 10%
LD 9%
Grn 2%
Ref 2%

Deltapoll; 1,063; 2-6 March)

Pretty short lived Tory revival. I thought that Daily Mail front page was supposed to have swung it! (In Hartlepool at least)

Tory Revival No.780

They’ll probably hit it lucky some time in the high four figures.

turbotubbs

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.

I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?

TheScreamingEagles

Ugh, did we lose a war?

Emmanuel Macron is seeking a major increase in British funding to stop migrants leaving the French coast.

British and French officials are negotiating a longer-term deal to pay for beach patrols, surveillance and police action to smash the people smuggling gangs ahead of an Anglo-French summit in Paris between the Prime Minister and the French president.

Sources from the Elysee Palace said that officials were trying to agree a “multi-annual financing framework” that would allow them to “better plan our actions” and increase officers, equipment and asylum accommodation for migrants.

“We are ready to do more,” said one French government official.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/03/08/emmanuel-macron-demands-money-uk-stop-migrants-leaving-france/?utm_content=telegraph

turbotubbs

Selebian said:

kjh said:

Selebian said:

mwadams said:

I'd be very interested to see what proportion of the 33% agree with him, if any. I suspect this is more reflective of the subject matter than the delivery.

I think he's a bit of a tit, but I've no issue with him making public pronouncements on politics or whatever else, as long as it's not on air at the BBC.

To take someone with different political views, I also had no issue with Clarkson writing newspaper columns while also on Top Gear (assuming he was doing so at the same time?).

Agree, other than 'he's a bit of a tit' bit as I don't think he is. I am a fan of both Lineker and Clarkson in all of what they do. They both make me smile with the comments they make. I enjoy the exaggeration.

Well, I think Clarkson is more of a tit.

But... I like tits (I refer to blue, great, coal and long-tailed, obviously).

I think Clarkson being a tit is a character he plays.

Carnyx

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.

I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?

It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.

Carnyx

turbotubbs said:

Selebian said:

kjh said:

Selebian said:

mwadams said:

I'd be very interested to see what proportion of the 33% agree with him, if any. I suspect this is more reflective of the subject matter than the delivery.

I think he's a bit of a tit, but I've no issue with him making public pronouncements on politics or whatever else, as long as it's not on air at the BBC.

To take someone with different political views, I also had no issue with Clarkson writing newspaper columns while also on Top Gear (assuming he was doing so at the same time?).

Agree, other than 'he's a bit of a tit' bit as I don't think he is. I am a fan of both Lineker and Clarkson in all of what they do. They both make me smile with the comments they make. I enjoy the exaggeration.

Well, I think Clarkson is more of a tit.

But... I like tits (I refer to blue, great, coal and long-tailed, obviously).

I think Clarkson being a tit is a character he plays.

Erm, he takes it a bit too far with his method acting.

Driver

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

Easy enough to find on Google:

https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/social-media/#expressionsofopiniononsocialmedia

They should not:


state or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party
express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’

TheScreamingEagles

I remember when Tories used to praise the Board of Deputies for calling out bigotry, I wonder if that will continue?

Board of Deputies say they have ‘significant concerns’ over government’s Migration Bill. Good statement



https://twitter.com/lmharpin/status/1633491596019740674

Roger

WillG said:

Absolutely no issue with Lineker expressing political views I disagree with. But comparing limitations on asylum policy with the systematic state violence carried out by Hitler's Germany is an insult to Jewish people everywhere. Millions were gassed to death in ovens for fuck's sake.

Bullshit. It was exactly this type of policy in the 30's -as advocated by the likes of the Daily Mail -that made things so difficult for Jews to escape the persecution and why now there is such sensitivity to ALL asylum claims throughout Europe.

turbotubbs

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.

I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?

It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.

What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.

TheScreamingEagles

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

Easy enough to find on Google:

https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/social-media/#expressionsofopiniononsocialmedia

They should not:


state or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party
express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’

But the BBC and the government were fine with Lineker calling out Qatar.

He can cite an estoppel by convention on this.

TOPPING

TheScreamingEagles said:

I remember when Tories used to praise the Board of Deputies for calling out bigotry, I wonder if that will continue?

Board of Deputies say they have ‘significant concerns’ over government’s Migration Bill. Good statement



https://twitter.com/lmharpin/status/1633491596019740674

Absolutely shocking. What were they thinking.

A more egregious use of a split infinitive I have yet to see today.

Northern_Al

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

Easy enough to find on Google:

https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/social-media/#expressionsofopiniononsocialmedia

They should not:


state or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party
express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’

You conveniently, and disingenuously, omitted the preceding blurb:

Individuals involved in the production or presentation of any output in News or other factual areas that regularly deal with a range of public policy issues have a particular responsibility to avoid damaging the BBC’s impartiality.

Nothing should appear on their social media accounts which undermines the integrity or impartiality of the BBC.

The bit you pasted then follows. Lineker is not involved in News output, and it's a stretch to argue football is 'factual'.

BartholomewRoberts

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.

I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?

It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.

What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.

You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.

That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.

Sunil_Prasannan

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Selebian said:

kjh said:

Selebian said:

mwadams said:

I'd be very interested to see what proportion of the 33% agree with him, if any. I suspect this is more reflective of the subject matter than the delivery.

I think he's a bit of a tit, but I've no issue with him making public pronouncements on politics or whatever else, as long as it's not on air at the BBC.

To take someone with different political views, I also had no issue with Clarkson writing newspaper columns while also on Top Gear (assuming he was doing so at the same time?).

Agree, other than 'he's a bit of a tit' bit as I don't think he is. I am a fan of both Lineker and Clarkson in all of what they do. They both make me smile with the comments they make. I enjoy the exaggeration.

Well, I think Clarkson is more of a tit.

But... I like tits (I refer to blue, great, coal and long-tailed, obviously).

I think Clarkson being a tit is a character he plays.

Erm, he takes it a bit too far with his method acting.

And on that bombshell...

Stuartinromford

TheScreamingEagles said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

Easy enough to find on Google:

https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/social-media/#expressionsofopiniononsocialmedia

They should not:


state or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party
express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’

But the BBC and the government were fine with Lineker calling out Qatar.

He can cite an estoppel by convention on this.

Besides, the paragraph above clarifies who the "they" is;

Individuals involved in the production or presentation of any output in News or other factual areas that regularly deal with a range of public policy issues have a particular responsibility to avoid damaging the BBC’s impartiality.

Nothing should appear on their social media accounts which undermines the integrity or impartiality of the BBC.

News and public policy.

Not football. As we all know, football is far more important.

Carnyx

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.

I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?

It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.

What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.

You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.

That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.

Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.

WillG

Roger said:

WillG said:

Absolutely no issue with Lineker expressing political views I disagree with. But comparing limitations on asylum policy with the systematic state violence carried out by Hitler's Germany is an insult to Jewish people everywhere. Millions were gassed to death in ovens for fuck's sake.

Bullshit. It was exactly this type of policy in the 30's -as advocated by the likes of the Daily Mail -that made things so difficult for Jews to escape the persecution and why now there is such sensitivity to ALL asylum claims throughout Europe.

What are you drivelling on about? Jews were forced into concentration camps in Germany, not prevented from being let in.

And to be honest, given you were a vocal supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Livingstone, you don't make a very credible voice on discussions of anti-Semitism.

Driver

Northern_Al said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

Easy enough to find on Google:

https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/social-media/#expressionsofopiniononsocialmedia

They should not:


state or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party
express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’

You conveniently, and disingenuously, omitted the preceding blurb:

Individuals involved in the production or presentation of any output in News or other factual areas that regularly deal with a range of public policy issues have a particular responsibility to avoid damaging the BBC’s impartiality.

Nothing should appear on their social media accounts which undermines the integrity or impartiality of the BBC.

The bit you pasted then follows. Lineker is not involved in News output, and it's a stretch to argue football is 'factual'.

You're missing the significance of the word "particular", I think.

williamglenn

TheScreamingEagles said:

I remember when Tories used to praise the Board of Deputies for calling out bigotry, I wonder if that will continue?

Board of Deputies say they have ‘significant concerns’ over government’s Migration Bill. Good statement



https://twitter.com/lmharpin/status/1633491596019740674

Proposing to reduce the numbers crossing by increasing the numbers accepted scores fairly highly on the Orwellian language scale.

rcs1000

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.

I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?

Ah ha.

But Mr Lineker is not a BBC employee.

Carnyx

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.

I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?

It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.

What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.

Exactly - so he is obviously worth the money.

Any price is what two people agree it is.

Northern_Al

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

Easy enough to find on Google:

https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/social-media/#expressionsofopiniononsocialmedia

They should not:


state or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party
express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’

But the BBC and the government were fine with Lineker calling out Qatar.

He can cite an estoppel by convention on this.

Besides, the paragraph above clarifies who the "they" is;

Individuals involved in the production or presentation of any output in News or other factual areas that regularly deal with a range of public policy issues have a particular responsibility to avoid damaging the BBC’s impartiality.

Nothing should appear on their social media accounts which undermines the integrity or impartiality of the BBC.

News and public policy.

Not football. As we all know, football is far more important.

Beat you to it (as usual ).

jamesdoyle

turbotubbs said:

Selebian said:

kjh said:

Selebian said:

mwadams said:

I'd be very interested to see what proportion of the 33% agree with him, if any. I suspect this is more reflective of the subject matter than the delivery.

I think he's a bit of a tit, but I've no issue with him making public pronouncements on politics or whatever else, as long as it's not on air at the BBC.

To take someone with different political views, I also had no issue with Clarkson writing newspaper columns while also on Top Gear (assuming he was doing so at the same time?).

Agree, other than 'he's a bit of a tit' bit as I don't think he is. I am a fan of both Lineker and Clarkson in all of what they do. They both make me smile with the comments they make. I enjoy the exaggeration.

Well, I think Clarkson is more of a tit.

But... I like tits (I refer to blue, great, coal and long-tailed, obviously).

I think Clarkson being a tit is a character he plays.

No, I know quite a few people who had a lot of dealings with him when he lived on the Isle of Man,
and 'tit' is a mild word compared to how they view him. One relative in particular only put up with him because she was close friends with his wife, and she (my relative) found him quite unbearable.

BartholomewRoberts

Sunil_Prasannan said:

"Gary is just another LEFTY LINEKER standing in our way!"

I thought he was more of a striker than a left winger?

Northern_Al

Driver said:

Northern_Al said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

Easy enough to find on Google:

https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/social-media/#expressionsofopiniononsocialmedia

They should not:


state or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party
express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’

You conveniently, and disingenuously, omitted the preceding blurb:

Individuals involved in the production or presentation of any output in News or other factual areas that regularly deal with a range of public policy issues have a particular responsibility to avoid damaging the BBC’s impartiality.

Nothing should appear on their social media accounts which undermines the integrity or impartiality of the BBC.

The bit you pasted then follows. Lineker is not involved in News output, and it's a stretch to argue football is 'factual'.

You're missing the significance of the word "particular", I think.

So why didn't you give the full quote in the first place, eh?

Sean_F

Lineker is entitled to express his views, wrong-headed though they often are.

In 1930’s Germany, the authorities used such terms as vermin, plague rats, bacilli, poisonous fungus etc. to demonise their enemies. Such language has not been used by the current government.

WillG

Chris said:

WillG said:

Absolutely no issue with Lineker expressing political views I disagree with. But comparing limitations on asylum policy with the systematic state violence carried out by Hitler's Germany is an insult to Jewish people everywhere. Millions were gassed to death in ovens for fuck's sake.

How is it that people can't read simple English and see that it's Braverman's language that Lineker compared to that of Germany in the 1930s?

Perhaps we'd do better to try communicating in grunts?

This language do you mean?

“This criminal race has the two million dead of the (First) World War on their conscience, and now hundreds of thousands. Let no one say to me: we cannot send them into the mire. Who concerns themselves about our men? It is good if preceding us is the terror that we are exterminating the Jews."

Go on then. Give me the Braverman quote that is equivalent.

Chris

Northern_Al said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

Easy enough to find on Google:

https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/social-media/#expressionsofopiniononsocialmedia

They should not:


state or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party
express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’

You conveniently, and disingenuously, omitted the preceding blurb:

Individuals involved in the production or presentation of any output in News or other factual areas that regularly deal with a range of public policy issues have a particular responsibility to avoid damaging the BBC’s impartiality.

Nothing should appear on their social media accounts which undermines the integrity or impartiality of the BBC.

The bit you pasted then follows. Lineker is not involved in News output, and it's a stretch to argue football is 'factual'.

It's more than a stretch to argue that football commentating is a factual area "that regularly deal[s] with a range of public policy issues"!

rcs1000

Guys:

Gary Linkekar is not a BBC employee, so it is far from clear that he is bound by the impartiality rules. We would need to see his specific contract to know what he agreed to.

FeersumEnjineeya

Selebian said:

kjh said:

Selebian said:

mwadams said:

I'd be very interested to see what proportion of the 33% agree with him, if any. I suspect this is more reflective of the subject matter than the delivery.

I think he's a bit of a tit, but I've no issue with him making public pronouncements on politics or whatever else, as long as it's not on air at the BBC.

To take someone with different political views, I also had no issue with Clarkson writing newspaper columns while also on Top Gear (assuming he was doing so at the same time?).

Agree, other than 'he's a bit of a tit' bit as I don't think he is. I am a fan of both Lineker and Clarkson in all of what they do. They both make me smile with the comments they make. I enjoy the exaggeration.

Well, I think Clarkson is more of a tit.

But... I like tits (I refer to blue, great, coal and long-tailed, obviously).

Yes, I've always disliked Clarkson and found his climate change denial particularly irritating. But I've never considered that the political views of a motoring journalist / comedian would be grounds for his silencing or dismissal from the BBC. He, like Lineker should be free to express his opinion; it doesn't mean anyone has to listen to it.

P.S. I can't say I find either of them a particularly worthwhile use of licence-payers' money, but that's probably just me.

turbotubbs

rcs1000 said:

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.

I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?

Ah ha.

But Mr Lineker is not a BBC employee.

I'd argue he should be. That he isn't is a tax dodge.

turbotubbs

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.

I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?

It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.

What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.

Exactly - so he is obviously worth the money.

Any price is what two people agree it is.

Its not the BBC's money ultimately. We all pay the licence fee.

malcolmg

TheScreamingEagles said:

SNP Cabinet Minister Shona Robison accuses Kate Forbes of "trashing" the SG and "undermining" Nicola Sturgeon. Also:

- demanded "full transparency" on Forbes' views on abortion
- said she would have to think long and hard about serving in her Gov

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1633485235500326913

More rubbish cleared out then , she is totally useless, no good butt licker. Unless rigged and Useless gets it then there will be few ministers survive and rightly so.

StuartDickson

The BBC is apparently going to ‘speak to’ @GaryLineker about this tweet, which is ironic as it’s more accurate than most of the corporation’s actual news coverage.
https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1633362816613642240?s=46

Driver

rcs1000 said:

Guys:

Gary Linkekar is not a BBC employee, so it is far from clear that he is bound by the impartiality rules. We would need to see his specific contract to know what he agreed to.

That's a fair point. Personally I think that he should be allowed to express these views but also that he should know better than to actually do so.

malcolmg

rcs1000 said:

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.

I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?

Ah ha.

But Mr Lineker is not a BBC employee.

HMRC claim he is

Stuartinromford

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

"Gary is just another LEFTY LINEKER standing in our way!"

I thought he was more of a striker than a left winger?

That's the thing about all those lefty types. Always going on strike. Do you know, you couldn't get the dead buried?

kinabalu

Pagan2 said:

FPT

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Westie said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SouthamObserver said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bigjohnowls said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

Leon said:

SouthamObserver said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

turbotubbs said:

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.

Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.

Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.

He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.

There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.

It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.

Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.

They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.

The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.

I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.

Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.

In a serious question:

How *would* anyone stop the boats?

It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.

That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.

Stopping the boats, if that's your main aim, is pretty simple. A UK asylum centre in Calais and ferry tickets to Dover.

Stopping boats without letting people in another way? Can't help you there.

Is it that simple? Will the Albanians simply give up when rejected at Calais?

Quite possibly. But it reduces the numbers of boat people, which makes it easier to catch and return those who remain.

Part of our problem at the moment is that the rate of people coming in vastly exceeds our state ability to process them.

So the UK is reduced to bloodcurdling threats that it probably can't carry out. Partly human rights law, but partly because the UK state can't reliably carry out anything. Trust me- that tends not to work.

Pitiful

Making asylum easier to claim at Calais - then giving the lucky ones tickets for the Dover Ferry - will just INCREASE the pull factor of Calais

Tens of thousands more will try. What will those that fail then do? Will they think “shit, at least the UK gave me a fair go, oh well, now I’ll head back to Albania/Somalia”

Or will they simply try and cross illegally? As before, but in even greater numbers?

You don’t have an answer which doesn’t make you extremely uncomfortable. So you would rather provide no answer at all. It’s a kind of cowardice

If you provide safe routes, then there is far less argument legally about those who choose not to use them.

Where are we going to deport them? We are incapable of deporting anyone because liberal lawyers go mad and Gary lineker calls you goebbels and everyone is pathetically spineless

And if we did start actually deporting those that failed the Calais asylum test then they’d all go back to destroying their documents and using the dinghies

It’s just another pitifuf non answer. It is pathetic

Liberal lawyers going mad or staying sane does not change the law.

If you want the policy objectives that the govt is pushing with their policy you need to be angry with the govt for not leaving the refugee convention not liberal lawyers.

I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.

However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.

If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.

You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!

Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?

If so, then its legal, is it not?

Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.

Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.

Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.

Have you heard of international law?

Yes. Its a bad joke.

Parliament can override international law.

It can't override it, it can legislate to make it unenforceable in the UK. The UK then lives with the consequences of that because the international law still exists. In the case of the illegal immigration legislation, though, the government is saying it is not acting contrary to international law or seeking to make it unenforceable.

We live with the consequences then, if that is what we choose to do, that is a matter for politics not lawyers.

If Parliament passes a Bill overriding international law domestically, eg by legalising cannabis which I wholeheartedly support in violation of international law, then there are no international courts that can override the UK Parliament. Nor should there be.

Or the UN Declaration on Human Rights, that asserts the rights of all human beings to live in dignity regardless of ethnic origin, or the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Or the Geneva Conventions. Do you think the sovereign body in any sovereign country ought to be able to renege on any international law it wishes to, so long as it only does so domestically? So for example the Brazilian parliament could decide to exterminate the Yanomami people and they shouldn't be held responsible before an international court if they did?

Yes I 100% think any sovereign body ought to be able to renege on any international law it wishes to do so, domestically.

If the Brazilian Parliament chose to exterminate a people then that would be a matter for international relations to resolve, not lawyers or courts. Just as China's acts of genocide against the Rohingya and others.

A genuinely robust international legal system that punishes and deters such atrocities, regardless of who commits them and where they happen, is a challenging aspiration, but it's a bit odd to say it isn't a worthwhile one.

Its not a worthwhile one, because the meaning of atrocity changes. The problem is what's good today can be awful in the future, or vice-versa/

The law should be a living, breathing, and most importantly evolving body - which is what Parliament is for.

If you go back just ten years it was illegal for two men to marry each other in Scotland.
If you go back ~fifty years it was illegal for two men to love each other and could result in imprisonment.
If you go back hundreds of years, it could result in execution.

You operate as if international law is "good" so should be set in stone, but the law has never been that way. Ossifying laws in stone is how you end up with the madness that is the US Second Amendment and routine mass murder in schools. Ossifying laws in stone is how you end up with gays being stoned to death.

If an international law signed in the 50s put a prohibition on same sex marriage, then I think Parliament would be well within its rights to say that notwithstanding the law we are legalising it. If an international law signed in the 18th century had a Second Amendment style ruling then following Dunblane I'd think that Parliament is perfectly entitled to say that the law needs to change.

We should seek to tackle atrocities internationally, but that needs to be done via international relations, not laws locking in the views of the past to be enforced in the future.

A robust and dynamic international legal system then. One which moves with the times as all good legal systems should. To inter alia punish and deter atrocities. As I say, most odd to not at least grant this to be a worthwhile aspiration. Still, you're you. With your reverence for the Nation State.

It is not a reverence for the Nation State, it is a reverence for democracy. Democracy is attached to the Nation State.

Our legal system evolves with the times due to Parliament, and we have routine elections to Parliament.

If you want international law to evolve with the times and not be ossified to the past saying that cannabis must be illegal/gays must be stoned/second amendment etc then without a global Parliament how do you achieve that?

And if there is a global Parliament, then haven't you just globalised all the issues you decry with the Nation State?

If a local council in a deeply conservative part of the country wished to ban homosexuality in accordance with local demand we would say to them and their voters, "Nope, sorry, not on. There's a higher law against you doing that."

IOW some things are too important to be left to the voters. It's therefore not just about democracy. It's about where is the best place in an ideal world - since I did say 'aspiration' remember - for certain fundamental human rights to be protected.

Asserting this is always and forever the nation state, ie there can never be anything so important it can't be left to voters at this level of aggregation, is illogical. It comes from, as I say, revering the nation state itself. Which is what you do, what many people do tbf, odd as it might appear to me.

A local Council is not a country, so can not deprive people of national rights. That is the nation protecting them, yes.

If a country wants to ban homosexuality it can. I would absolutely deplore that, I would be against that, I would be disgusted - but it would be able to do so and many do.

The way to prevent that is to have educated voters who would vote out any Government so repellent, not rely upon flawed and failed international institutions to do so.

Nothing is too important to be left to the voters. Only the voters protect our rights.

You're still not explaining why (as a long term aspiration) we wouldn't want basic human rights to be protected at a level higher than the nation state.

You seem to revere it - the nation state - and I find this odd.

I've explained it repeatedly. 😕

The higher the authority the more dangerous it is. The more out of touch, the more remote, the more inflexible. If we had a solitary global government with solitary global rights we'd probably still have abortion illegal as its murder, homosexuality outlawed etc - why would you welcome that?

You seem to think global = good but there's no evidence for that and actually global changes in liberalism seriously lag forerunning nation states becoming more liberal. The UK to this day is more liberal than most of the world, so if you want a global standard you either want our standards to worsen to the lowest common denominator, or you want to be an imperialist and compel other nations to our standards against their wishes.

If higher necessarily means more dangerous re protecting human rights why don't you argue for this power to reside at (say) local government level?

The point is we get to vote in or out the people who makes the rules, we wouldn't get that with a supranational body and would just have to take their pronouncements. The fault in your thinking is believing that any supranational body would agree with all your views when it almost certainly wouldn't. Somethings would not be legal that you think ought to be and other things you think shouldn't be legal would be. Which was why I asked you if you would trust finns, danes and romanians to be on this supranational body....a question you didn't answer

I did reply (PT) but ok, I think we're still at cross purposes. I'm not arguing for some new global order world government! I'm merely probing why people believe the NATION STATE is the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to protecting basic human rights. That we wouldn't (assuming it were feasible) want them protected at a higher level than that. I find this odd.

Chris

WillG said:

Chris said:

WillG said:

Absolutely no issue with Lineker expressing political views I disagree with. But comparing limitations on asylum policy with the systematic state violence carried out by Hitler's Germany is an insult to Jewish people everywhere. Millions were gassed to death in ovens for fuck's sake.

How is it that people can't read simple English and see that it's Braverman's language that Lineker compared to that of Germany in the 1930s?

Perhaps we'd do better to try communicating in grunts?

This language do you mean?

Childish.

Barnesian

slade said:

Is this a first for me? Three by-elections tomorrow: SNP defence in Edinburgh, Lab defences in Hounslow and Haringey.

I'll be telling in Hounslow tomorrow.

Driver

Chris said:

WillG said:

Chris said:

WillG said:

Absolutely no issue with Lineker expressing political views I disagree with. But comparing limitations on asylum policy with the systematic state violence carried out by Hitler's Germany is an insult to Jewish people everywhere. Millions were gassed to death in ovens for fuck's sake.

How is it that people can't read simple English and see that it's Braverman's language that Lineker compared to that of Germany in the 1930s?

Perhaps we'd do better to try communicating in grunts?

This language do you mean?

Childish.

Restoring the rest of the comment:

“This criminal race has the two million dead of the (First) World War on their conscience, and now hundreds of thousands. Let no one say to me: we cannot send them into the mire. Who concerns themselves about our men? It is good if preceding us is the terror that we are exterminating the Jews."

Go on then. Give me the Braverman quote that is equivalent.

Conclusion: you can't.

StuartDickson

I think I’ll have to go:

1. Forbes
2. Regan
3. Yousaf

Daveyboy1961

Barnesian said:

slade said:

Is this a first for me? Three by-elections tomorrow: SNP defence in Edinburgh, Lab defences in Hounslow and Haringey.

I'll be telling in Hounslow tomorrow.

Do you think the result will be telling?.......

hehe

rcs1000

WillG said:

Chris said:

WillG said:

Absolutely no issue with Lineker expressing political views I disagree with. But comparing limitations on asylum policy with the systematic state violence carried out by Hitler's Germany is an insult to Jewish people everywhere. Millions were gassed to death in ovens for fuck's sake.

How is it that people can't read simple English and see that it's Braverman's language that Lineker compared to that of Germany in the 1930s?

Perhaps we'd do better to try communicating in grunts?

This language do you mean?

“This criminal race has the two million dead of the (First) World War on their conscience, and now hundreds of thousands. Let no one say to me: we cannot send them into the mire. Who concerns themselves about our men? It is good if preceding us is the terror that we are exterminating the Jews."

Go on then. Give me the Braverman quote that is equivalent.

I can find you a Katie Hopkins quote that comes close if you like.

Selebian

malcolmg said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SNP Cabinet Minister Shona Robison accuses Kate Forbes of "trashing" the SG and "undermining" Nicola Sturgeon. Also:

- demanded "full transparency" on Forbes' views on abortion
- said she would have to think long and hard about serving in her Gov

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1633485235500326913

More rubbish cleared out then , she is totally useless, no good butt licker. Unless rigged and Useless gets it then there will be few ministers survive and rightly so.

We did some research for her department (quite a few years ago) and I found her unusually competent, engaged and reliable, for a politician at least. She was present on steering group calls and both seemed to understand what we were doing and the things she promised would happen did happen. Very specific thing though, small part of her remit, so maybe not a fair overall picture. I did wonder why she was as involved as she was - normally we just see civil servants - so perhaps she had a personal interest.

TheScreamingEagles

The Manchester City and England defender Kyle Walker is facing a potential criminal investigation after security camera footage appeared to show him flashing in public.

The 32-year-old, who played for England at the World Cup in Qatar last year, was videoed allegedly exposing himself twice while in a bar in Manchester on Sunday evening.

The full back arrived at the bar at about 5.20pm, a day after he had played against Newcastle United, in City’s 2-0 victory at the Etihad Stadium. Security camera footage, obtained by The Sun, shows Walker arriving at the bar wearing a puffer jacket and cap.

The footballer began kissing one of the women he arrived with. Shortly afterwards he appeared to expose himself by dropping his trousers in front of two women before speaking to them.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kyle-walker-england-defender-exposed-himself-in-bar-khskh9h93

Chris

Driver said:

Chris said:

WillG said:

Chris said:

WillG said:

Absolutely no issue with Lineker expressing political views I disagree with. But comparing limitations on asylum policy with the systematic state violence carried out by Hitler's Germany is an insult to Jewish people everywhere. Millions were gassed to death in ovens for fuck's sake.

How is it that people can't read simple English and see that it's Braverman's language that Lineker compared to that of Germany in the 1930s?

Perhaps we'd do better to try communicating in grunts?

This language do you mean?

Childish.

Restoring the rest of the comment:

“This criminal race has the two million dead of the (First) World War on their conscience, and now hundreds of thousands. Let no one say to me: we cannot send them into the mire. Who concerns themselves about our men? It is good if preceding us is the terror that we are exterminating the Jews."

Go on then. Give me the Braverman quote that is equivalent.

Conclusion: you can't.

Why not go the whole hog and challenge me to prove that Braverman has demanded that the Sudetenland should be ceded to her?

I'm sorry - childish really wasn't a strong enough word for this kind of nonsense.

Pagan2

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

FPT

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Westie said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SouthamObserver said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bigjohnowls said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

Leon said:

SouthamObserver said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

turbotubbs said:

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.

Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.

Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.

He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.

There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.

It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.

Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.

They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.

The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.

I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.

Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.

In a serious question:

How *would* anyone stop the boats?

It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.

That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.

Stopping the boats, if that's your main aim, is pretty simple. A UK asylum centre in Calais and ferry tickets to Dover.

Stopping boats without letting people in another way? Can't help you there.

Is it that simple? Will the Albanians simply give up when rejected at Calais?

Quite possibly. But it reduces the numbers of boat people, which makes it easier to catch and return those who remain.

Part of our problem at the moment is that the rate of people coming in vastly exceeds our state ability to process them.

So the UK is reduced to bloodcurdling threats that it probably can't carry out. Partly human rights law, but partly because the UK state can't reliably carry out anything. Trust me- that tends not to work.

Pitiful

Making asylum easier to claim at Calais - then giving the lucky ones tickets for the Dover Ferry - will just INCREASE the pull factor of Calais

Tens of thousands more will try. What will those that fail then do? Will they think “shit, at least the UK gave me a fair go, oh well, now I’ll head back to Albania/Somalia”

Or will they simply try and cross illegally? As before, but in even greater numbers?

You don’t have an answer which doesn’t make you extremely uncomfortable. So you would rather provide no answer at all. It’s a kind of cowardice

If you provide safe routes, then there is far less argument legally about those who choose not to use them.

Where are we going to deport them? We are incapable of deporting anyone because liberal lawyers go mad and Gary lineker calls you goebbels and everyone is pathetically spineless

And if we did start actually deporting those that failed the Calais asylum test then they’d all go back to destroying their documents and using the dinghies

It’s just another pitifuf non answer. It is pathetic

Liberal lawyers going mad or staying sane does not change the law.

If you want the policy objectives that the govt is pushing with their policy you need to be angry with the govt for not leaving the refugee convention not liberal lawyers.

I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.

However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.

If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.

You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!

Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?

If so, then its legal, is it not?

Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.

Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.

Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.

Have you heard of international law?

Yes. Its a bad joke.

Parliament can override international law.

It can't override it, it can legislate to make it unenforceable in the UK. The UK then lives with the consequences of that because the international law still exists. In the case of the illegal immigration legislation, though, the government is saying it is not acting contrary to international law or seeking to make it unenforceable.

We live with the consequences then, if that is what we choose to do, that is a matter for politics not lawyers.

If Parliament passes a Bill overriding international law domestically, eg by legalising cannabis which I wholeheartedly support in violation of international law, then there are no international courts that can override the UK Parliament. Nor should there be.

Or the UN Declaration on Human Rights, that asserts the rights of all human beings to live in dignity regardless of ethnic origin, or the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Or the Geneva Conventions. Do you think the sovereign body in any sovereign country ought to be able to renege on any international law it wishes to, so long as it only does so domestically? So for example the Brazilian parliament could decide to exterminate the Yanomami people and they shouldn't be held responsible before an international court if they did?

Yes I 100% think any sovereign body ought to be able to renege on any international law it wishes to do so, domestically.

If the Brazilian Parliament chose to exterminate a people then that would be a matter for international relations to resolve, not lawyers or courts. Just as China's acts of genocide against the Rohingya and others.

A genuinely robust international legal system that punishes and deters such atrocities, regardless of who commits them and where they happen, is a challenging aspiration, but it's a bit odd to say it isn't a worthwhile one.

Its not a worthwhile one, because the meaning of atrocity changes. The problem is what's good today can be awful in the future, or vice-versa/

The law should be a living, breathing, and most importantly evolving body - which is what Parliament is for.

If you go back just ten years it was illegal for two men to marry each other in Scotland.
If you go back ~fifty years it was illegal for two men to love each other and could result in imprisonment.
If you go back hundreds of years, it could result in execution.

You operate as if international law is "good" so should be set in stone, but the law has never been that way. Ossifying laws in stone is how you end up with the madness that is the US Second Amendment and routine mass murder in schools. Ossifying laws in stone is how you end up with gays being stoned to death.

If an international law signed in the 50s put a prohibition on same sex marriage, then I think Parliament would be well within its rights to say that notwithstanding the law we are legalising it. If an international law signed in the 18th century had a Second Amendment style ruling then following Dunblane I'd think that Parliament is perfectly entitled to say that the law needs to change.

We should seek to tackle atrocities internationally, but that needs to be done via international relations, not laws locking in the views of the past to be enforced in the future.

A robust and dynamic international legal system then. One which moves with the times as all good legal systems should. To inter alia punish and deter atrocities. As I say, most odd to not at least grant this to be a worthwhile aspiration. Still, you're you. With your reverence for the Nation State.

It is not a reverence for the Nation State, it is a reverence for democracy. Democracy is attached to the Nation State.

Our legal system evolves with the times due to Parliament, and we have routine elections to Parliament.

If you want international law to evolve with the times and not be ossified to the past saying that cannabis must be illegal/gays must be stoned/second amendment etc then without a global Parliament how do you achieve that?

And if there is a global Parliament, then haven't you just globalised all the issues you decry with the Nation State?

If a local council in a deeply conservative part of the country wished to ban homosexuality in accordance with local demand we would say to them and their voters, "Nope, sorry, not on. There's a higher law against you doing that."

IOW some things are too important to be left to the voters. It's therefore not just about democracy. It's about where is the best place in an ideal world - since I did say 'aspiration' remember - for certain fundamental human rights to be protected.

Asserting this is always and forever the nation state, ie there can never be anything so important it can't be left to voters at this level of aggregation, is illogical. It comes from, as I say, revering the nation state itself. Which is what you do, what many people do tbf, odd as it might appear to me.

A local Council is not a country, so can not deprive people of national rights. That is the nation protecting them, yes.

If a country wants to ban homosexuality it can. I would absolutely deplore that, I would be against that, I would be disgusted - but it would be able to do so and many do.

The way to prevent that is to have educated voters who would vote out any Government so repellent, not rely upon flawed and failed international institutions to do so.

Nothing is too important to be left to the voters. Only the voters protect our rights.

You're still not explaining why (as a long term aspiration) we wouldn't want basic human rights to be protected at a level higher than the nation state.

You seem to revere it - the nation state - and I find this odd.

I've explained it repeatedly. 😕

The higher the authority the more dangerous it is. The more out of touch, the more remote, the more inflexible. If we had a solitary global government with solitary global rights we'd probably still have abortion illegal as its murder, homosexuality outlawed etc - why would you welcome that?

You seem to think global = good but there's no evidence for that and actually global changes in liberalism seriously lag forerunning nation states becoming more liberal. The UK to this day is more liberal than most of the world, so if you want a global standard you either want our standards to worsen to the lowest common denominator, or you want to be an imperialist and compel other nations to our standards against their wishes.

If higher necessarily means more dangerous re protecting human rights why don't you argue for this power to reside at (say) local government level?

The point is we get to vote in or out the people who makes the rules, we wouldn't get that with a supranational body and would just have to take their pronouncements. The fault in your thinking is believing that any supranational body would agree with all your views when it almost certainly wouldn't. Somethings would not be legal that you think ought to be and other things you think shouldn't be legal would be. Which was why I asked you if you would trust finns, danes and romanians to be on this supranational body....a question you didn't answer

I did reply (PT) but ok, I think we're still at cross purposes. I'm not arguing for some new global order world government! I'm merely probing why people believe the NATION STATE is the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to protecting basic human rights. That we wouldn't (assuming it were feasible) want them protected at a higher level than that. I find this odd.

Already told you why.....no one should be able to impose laws on us that we can't vote out. I would also go as far as to say I think the nation state is in itself to large for most countries because democracy is too dilute. For example I think the uk could do with being divided into 4 equal parts from a democratic point of view.

Your view as previously stated however was that human rights were too important to leave purely to voters which implies this supranational body you envisage is not democratically accountable in the least

Selebian

rcs1000 said:

Guys:

Gary Linkekar is not a BBC employee, so it is far from clear that he is bound by the impartiality rules. We would need to see his specific contract to know what he agreed to.

Interesting, but what about Lineker?

(You didn't turn down the champagne?)

Driver

Chris said:

Driver said:

Chris said:

WillG said:

Chris said:

WillG said:

Absolutely no issue with Lineker expressing political views I disagree with. But comparing limitations on asylum policy with the systematic state violence carried out by Hitler's Germany is an insult to Jewish people everywhere. Millions were gassed to death in ovens for fuck's sake.

How is it that people can't read simple English and see that it's Braverman's language that Lineker compared to that of Germany in the 1930s?

Perhaps we'd do better to try communicating in grunts?

This language do you mean?

Childish.

Restoring the rest of the comment:

“This criminal race has the two million dead of the (First) World War on their conscience, and now hundreds of thousands. Let no one say to me: we cannot send them into the mire. Who concerns themselves about our men? It is good if preceding us is the terror that we are exterminating the Jews."

Go on then. Give me the Braverman quote that is equivalent.

Conclusion: you can't.

Why not go the whole hog and challenge me to prove that Braverman has demanded that the Sudetenland should be ceded to her?

I'm sorry - childish really wasn't a strong enough word for this kind of nonsense.

The claim was that the government's language was similar to that of the Nazis in the 30s. Such a claim requires some evidence.

eek

rcs1000 said:

Guys:

Gary Linkekar is not a BBC employee, so it is far from clear that he is bound by the impartiality rules. We would need to see his specific contract to know what he agreed to.

There is a tax tribunal where Gary's argument is that he was an employee so the BBC are responsible for the tax on the payments they paid to the partnership through which he works.

Selebian

Driver said:

Northern_Al said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

Easy enough to find on Google:

https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/social-media/#expressionsofopiniononsocialmedia

They should not:


state or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party
express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’

You conveniently, and disingenuously, omitted the preceding blurb:

Individuals involved in the production or presentation of any output in News or other factual areas that regularly deal with a range of public policy issues have a particular responsibility to avoid damaging the BBC’s impartiality.

Nothing should appear on their social media accounts which undermines the integrity or impartiality of the BBC.

The bit you pasted then follows. Lineker is not involved in News output, and it's a stretch to argue football is 'factual'.

You're missing the significance of the word "particular", I think.

Interesting wording, given that it could mean the responsibility is particular to them, i.e. only applies to them. I agree that it is probably intended to mean 'especially'.

Daveyboy1961

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.

I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?

It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.

What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.

Exactly - so he is obviously worth the money.

Any price is what two people agree it is.

Its not the BBC's money ultimately. We all pay the licence fee.

Ridiculous statement. When you buy a service, the money ceases to be yours. It would be like me telling tesco which suppliers to spend MY money on.

mwadams

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

Easy enough to find on Google:

https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/social-media/#expressionsofopiniononsocialmedia

They should not:


state or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party
express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’

"Individuals who don’t deal with these issues may not be bound by the same restrictions, but must still avoid bringing the BBC into disrepute through their activities on social media."

There's then a separate section on disrepute.

StuartDickson

So…

It is not ok for Gary Lineker to be actively anti-government

But it is ok for the BBC Chairman and the BBC Director General to be actively pro-government

Because, as far as I’m aware, our license fees pay the wages of all of these people…

https://twitter.com/marinapurkiss/status/1633430325631041536?s=46

Big_G_NorthWales

StuartDickson said:

I think I’ll have to go:

1. Forbes
2. Regan
3. Yousaf

Maybe you will now admit SNP are in freefall

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1633515605486895104?t=ucCpC_htpcdsolYHu5VKhA&s=19

Barnesian

Daveyboy1961 said:

Barnesian said:

slade said:

Is this a first for me? Three by-elections tomorrow: SNP defence in Edinburgh, Lab defences in Hounslow and Haringey.

I'll be telling in Hounslow tomorrow.

Do you think the result will be telling?.......

hehe

It might be surprising.

What odds the LibDems take the seat tomorrow with my help?

LibDems didn't stand last time in 2022.
The results were:



What odds?

StuartDickson

Curious that @GaryLineker was free to raise questions about Qatar’s human rights record - with the blessing of the bbc - over the World Cup , but cannot raise questions of human rights in this country if it involves criticism of government policy …

https://twitter.com/maitlis/status/1633444646482223106?s=46

Casino_Royale

Isn't this a poll against muzzling/cancel culture rather than support for what Lineker said?

TheScreamingEagles

SNP leads Labour by 11% in constituency VI for a Scottish parliamentary election.

Holyrood Constituency VI (2-5 March):

SNP 40% (-8)
Labour 29% (+7)
Conservatives 20% (-2)
Lib Dems 7% (–)
Green Party 2% (+1)
Reform UK 2% (+2)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 2021 Scottish Election

SNP leads Labour by 3% in regional VI for a Scottish parliamentary election.

Holyrood Regional List VI (2-5 March):

SNP 29% (-11)
Labour 26% (+8)
Conservatives 20% (-3)
Lib Dems 11% (+6)
Green Party 10% (+2)
Reform UK 1% (+1)
Other 3% (-2)

Changes +/- 2021 Scottish Election

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1633515605486895104?t=ucCpC_htpcdsolYHu5VKhA&s=19

OnlyLivingBoy

Driver said:

Chris said:

WillG said:

Chris said:

WillG said:

Absolutely no issue with Lineker expressing political views I disagree with. But comparing limitations on asylum policy with the systematic state violence carried out by Hitler's Germany is an insult to Jewish people everywhere. Millions were gassed to death in ovens for fuck's sake.

How is it that people can't read simple English and see that it's Braverman's language that Lineker compared to that of Germany in the 1930s?

Perhaps we'd do better to try communicating in grunts?

This language do you mean?

Childish.

Restoring the rest of the comment:

“This criminal race has the two million dead of the (First) World War on their conscience, and now hundreds of thousands. Let no one say to me: we cannot send them into the mire. Who concerns themselves about our men? It is good if preceding us is the terror that we are exterminating the Jews."

Go on then. Give me the Braverman quote that is equivalent.

Conclusion: you can't.

This quotation is from 1941 not the 1930s. Lineker's tweet likening the government rhetoric to that of the Nazis may have been hyperbolic, perhaps foolishly so, but many people are concerned about the path the government is taking us down on this issue. I think it is valid to point out that some of the language being used now, demonising foreigners and migrants, blaming them for the country's problems, and labelling the government's critics as traitors and enemies of the country, has some disturbing historical resonances. Nobody is accusing the government of readying the gas chambers.

kinabalu

Sean_F said:

Lineker is entitled to express his views, wrong-headed though they often are.

In 1930’s Germany, the authorities used such terms as vermin, plague rats, bacilli, poisonous fungus etc. to demonise their enemies. Such language has not been used by the current government.

A rather low bar to clear - and 'lessons from history' surely means not waiting until it recurs in identical and equally heinous form before ringing the bell.

FrankBooth

Support for people at the BBC airing personal views is not does not mean people agree with what Lineker is saying.

What I suspect Lineker isn't getting is that people assume the problem is going to get worse. And whilst other European countries take more migrants it is hardly uncontroversial elsewhere too.

turbotubbs

Daveyboy1961 said:

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.

I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?

It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.

What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.

Exactly - so he is obviously worth the money.

Any price is what two people agree it is.

Its not the BBC's money ultimately. We all pay the licence fee.

Ridiculous statement. When you buy a service, the money ceases to be yours. It would be like me telling tesco which suppliers to spend MY money on.

The point is I choose to buy Sky, I choose to buy Netflix, I choose to buy Amazon. I have NO choice in the licence fee. None. Why does the BBC feel it has to compete against other channels? Why pay for top 'talent'? Its got a guaranteed income.

If it become a subscription that I could choose then I would have no beef with the employment of Lineker (other than that I think he is not worth the money). I would be choosing to subscribe. Right now I cannot opt out and legally watch other channels.

StuartDickson

TheScreamingEagles said:

SNP leads Labour by 11% in constituency VI for a Scottish parliamentary election.

Holyrood Constituency VI (2-5 March):

SNP 40% (-8)
Labour 29% (+7)
Conservatives 20% (-2)
Lib Dems 7% (–)
Green Party 2% (+1)
Reform UK 2% (+2)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 2021 Scottish Election

SNP leads Labour by 3% in regional VI for a Scottish parliamentary election.

Holyrood Regional List VI (2-5 March):

SNP 29% (-11)
Labour 26% (+8)
Conservatives 20% (-3)
Lib Dems 11% (+6)
Green Party 10% (+2)
Reform UK 1% (+1)
Other 3% (-2)

Changes +/- 2021 Scottish Election

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1633515605486895104?t=ucCpC_htpcdsolYHu5VKhA&s=19

Lab/Con/LD coalition.

That’d be fun 😂

StuartDickson

……

Casino_Royale

Sean_F said:

Lineker is entitled to express his views, wrong-headed though they often are.

In 1930’s Germany, the authorities used such terms as vermin, plague rats, bacilli, poisonous fungus etc. to demonise their enemies. Such language has not been used by the current government.

But, it has been used against the current government by others.

Casino_Royale

rcs1000 said:

Guys:

Gary Linkekar is not a BBC employee, so it is far from clear that he is bound by the impartiality rules. We would need to see his specific contract to know what he agreed to.

True, although with an IR35 hat on to all-intents-and-purposes he appears to be as good as one to the public.

Which creates the challenge.

StuartDickson

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

I think I’ll have to go:

1. Forbes
2. Regan
3. Yousaf

Maybe you will now admit SNP are in freefall

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1633515605486895104?t=ucCpC_htpcdsolYHu5VKhA&s=19

Er… nope.

We’ve been in government for sixteen (yes, 16) years. And we’re still largest party. Whereas you Tory toe rags…

Casino_Royale

I suspect that, at heart, Clarkson and Lineker hold remarkably similar views on most things.

But, they are both playing to different galleries.

Burgessian

StuartDickson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SNP leads Labour by 11% in constituency VI for a Scottish parliamentary election.

Holyrood Constituency VI (2-5 March):

SNP 40% (-8)
Labour 29% (+7)
Conservatives 20% (-2)
Lib Dems 7% (–)
Green Party 2% (+1)
Reform UK 2% (+2)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 2021 Scottish Election

SNP leads Labour by 3% in regional VI for a Scottish parliamentary election.

Holyrood Regional List VI (2-5 March):

SNP 29% (-11)
Labour 26% (+8)
Conservatives 20% (-3)
Lib Dems 11% (+6)
Green Party 10% (+2)
Reform UK 1% (+1)
Other 3% (-2)

Changes +/- 2021 Scottish Election

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1633515605486895104?t=ucCpC_htpcdsolYHu5VKhA&s=19

Lab/Con/LD coalition.

That’d be fun 😂

Nope would be Lab/Lib coalition with Tories supporting on an informal basis as they did with Salmond after 2007.

TheScreamingEagles

'No' leads by 9 points.

Scotland Independence Referendum Voting Intention (2-5 March):

No, against Independence: 51% (+6)
Yes, for Independence: 42% (-7)
Don't Know: 8% (+3)

Changes +/- 26-27 November

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1633512910445228033

BartholomewRoberts

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.

If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.

Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.

He knew the rules when he signed his contract.

What rules?

Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.

BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.

I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?

It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.

What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.

You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.

That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.

Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.

Market forces don't apply to his salary.

Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.