The first statement is disputable as there has been a huge increase in irregular arrivals over the Channel in the past few years.
Oh behave Rob, you are splitting hairs. Anyway the naughty bit is what comes next, although it isn't naughty at all.
Not really, the comment that there hasn’t been a huge increase seems factually incorrect. Isn’t it approaching 10% of net migration is now coming via this irregular route? That’s a huge number.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Not sure that's that big of a distinction to be honest. 'An immeasurably cruel policy' as he put it (and many would agree), directed at the most vulnerable, in language akin to that of 1930s, that is Nazi, Germany.
I mean, he compared the government to Nazis whether he explicitly said the policy was Nazi like or if he said the language used was Nazi like.
I think it fails the 'would X be defended if Y said it?' test. "You are talking about your incredibly cruel policy in language a Nazi would use" might not technically be saying the policy is Naziesque, but its not as though no Nazi comparison has been made.
Much as people are right that if Lineker had praised the policy he would likely not have been punished, I think it is a bit ridiculous to claim by technicality he was not being pretty clear about Nazi comparisons.
Disagree. The Nazi crimes did not start with concentration camps, they started with dehumanising people and limiting their legal rights. It's the latter that the language used in this week's immigration announcement has similarity with.
The point doesn't seem to relate to the one I was making either way. He made a Nazi comparison. People can argue whether it was appropriate to make a Nazi comparison in this context (and I have seen others respond to the thread you link to disagreeing with it, such as https://twitter.com/hearnimator/status/1633599497153421320?cxt=HHwWkICx0cyF26stAAAA, whereas plenty of others say it is fair game), but he did make one.
Since the government and/or opponents would be outraged by any comparison to the Nazis, whilst its fair to be accurate about what he specifically said, it doesn't exactly erase the point if someone is saying 'He shouldn't have made a Nazi comparison', as that accusation remains accurate. People might still disagree with thinking it inappropraite, but the 'he talked about language not policies being Nazi like' I just don't see as a massively convincing point personally.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Not sure that's that big of a distinction to be honest. 'An immeasurably cruel policy' as he put it (and many would agree), directed at the most vulnerable, in language akin to that of 1930s, that is Nazi, Germany.
I mean, he compared the government to Nazis whether he explicitly said the policy was Nazi like or if he said the language used was Nazi like.
I think it fails the 'would X be defended if Y said it?' test. "You are talking about your incredibly cruel policy in language a Nazi would use" might not technically be saying the policy is Naziesque, but its not as though no Nazi comparison has been made.
Most people know that if you're going to draw a Nazi analogy you'd better be sure. A little bit sort of like the Nazis doesn't really cut it.
But it's undeniably true that there are echos of the language used in the 1930s in Germany, in the Immigration policy as announced:
"people who come here illegally will have their asylum claims deemed inadmissible" "modern slavery referrals for those who come to the UK illegally will be disqualified under public order grounds" "limiting the circumstances in which legal challenges will prevent someone from being removed from the UK" "strengthening detention powers so people can only apply for bail from the Courts (First-tier Tribunal) after 28 days"
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which politician of 1930s Germany do you think Lineker was alluding to? Since Hitler became chancellor in January 1933 do you think he meant Hindenburg?
Slightly surprised it's being taken that seriously by anyone. It's a monastic cesspit lid from local stone as shown by petrological work, not the Lia Fail of mediaeval desciption.
I know it's from Wikipedia, but there are some compelling arguments that it actually is the genuine article:
"The Westminster Stone theory is not accepted by many historians, or those responsible for the care of the Stone. There are many strong arguments against the theory.
If Edward I did not remove the true stone, yet claimed to have done so, the Scots' easiest refutation of his claims would be to produce the True Stone. However, there is no record of them doing so. Hiding the stone might have been a sensible precaution while the English remained a threat, but it was never produced once the threat was removed. Despite its importance as a symbol of Kingship, the stone was not used for subsequent coronations, which it surely would have if still in Scottish possession. Legends and theories abound, but no proof has been found to indicate there is another stone. If there was warning enough of Edward's intention to remove the Stone, why were the other regalia, documents and Black Rood not hidden also? A number of English knights attended the coronation of King John of Scotland only a few years earlier, and would have seen the true stone, but none of them told Edward that his stone was a fake. On studying the Stone in 1996, after its return to Scotland, nine periods of workmanship were identified on the Stone's faces, as well as recognisable erosion between the features, which proves it is an ancient artefact.[8] Edward had followers from the Scottish nobility who would also have been able to verify the stone's authenticity."
Even if the Scots didn't have the real one I'm astonished no one just made a fake one. It'd have been believed easily enough, just look at all those pieces of the True Cross that existed. I'm pretty sure Jesus was crucified on the world tree.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which politician of 1930s Germany do you think Lineker was alluding to? Since Hitler became chancellor in January 1933 do you think he meant Hindenburg?
I don't think he was alluding to any politician. He was rightly stating the the language used had similarities with that used in Germany in the 1930s.
Have the government blamed “money grubbing Jews boat people” for Britains ills? Or as a “racial tuberculosis” or a “dangerous bacillus”?
Or was it something blander said in “1930s Germany” that Lineker is referring to?
It's no surprise that the public is in support of 'stopping the small boats'. I mean, even lefties like me think that it isn't good at all to have so many people crossing the sea in that way - there must be a better way. So yes, I want to stop the 'small boats'.
What's important is a) whether the policy introduced last week will actually work, and b) what does a sensible and humane asylum seeker/refugee policy look like?
Here's the problem:
Large parts of the world are either failed or unpleasant states.
These failed / unpleasant states have populations which are large and growing rapidly.
These populations also have views which aren't aligned to those of the western world.
But a significant part of the people with non-western views from failed / unpleasant states wish to move to the western world because the western world is richer than they can ever hope to be.
And if all these people are allowed to move to the western world then the western world will turn into a failed / unpleasant state.
Nothing particularly new there. Has been the case all my long life. We used to deal with it much better.
The problem is steadily growing as third world populations grow and the despair of living in a failed state for generation after generation increases.
Its easy to see why someone from Iraq or Afghanistan or Somalia wants to migrate to the western world.
They are called the Global South for some reason (which seems a bit harsh on Australia and New Zealand and maybe Chile). And everybody knows that all their problems are because of European colonialism and the slave trade, which is obviously which they are so desperate to move to our racist and failing societies.
Australia and New Zealand are the only southern hemisphere nations in the Global North
Slightly surprised it's being taken that seriously by anyone. It's a monastic cesspit lid from local stone as shown by petrological work, not the Lia Fail of mediaeval desciption.
I know it's from Wikipedia, but there are some compelling arguments that it actually is the genuine article:
"The Westminster Stone theory is not accepted by many historians, or those responsible for the care of the Stone. There are many strong arguments against the theory.
If Edward I did not remove the true stone, yet claimed to have done so, the Scots' easiest refutation of his claims would be to produce the True Stone. However, there is no record of them doing so. Hiding the stone might have been a sensible precaution while the English remained a threat, but it was never produced once the threat was removed. Despite its importance as a symbol of Kingship, the stone was not used for subsequent coronations, which it surely would have if still in Scottish possession. Legends and theories abound, but no proof has been found to indicate there is another stone. If there was warning enough of Edward's intention to remove the Stone, why were the other regalia, documents and Black Rood not hidden also? A number of English knights attended the coronation of King John of Scotland only a few years earlier, and would have seen the true stone, but none of them told Edward that his stone was a fake. On studying the Stone in 1996, after its return to Scotland, nine periods of workmanship were identified on the Stone's faces, as well as recognisable erosion between the features, which proves it is an ancient artefact.[8] Edward had followers from the Scottish nobility who would also have been able to verify the stone's authenticity."
Even if the Scots didn't have the real one I'm astonished no one just made a fake one. It'd have been believed easily enough, just look at all those pieces of the True Cross that existed. I'm pretty sure Jesus was crucified on the world tree.
There’s a song about that:
Whan the reivers found oot what Westminster had done, They went aboot diggin up Stanes by the ton, And fur each wan they finished they entered a claim, That this wis the true and original Stane. With a too ra li oor ra' li oor a li ay.
Noo the cream o the joke still remains to be telt, For the bloke that wis turnin them aff on the belt, At the peak o production wis so sorely pressed, That the real yin got bunged in alang wi the rest. With a too ra li oor ra' li oor a li ay.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Not sure that's that big of a distinction to be honest. 'An immeasurably cruel policy' as he put it (and many would agree), directed at the most vulnerable, in language akin to that of 1930s, that is Nazi, Germany.
I mean, he compared the government to Nazis whether he explicitly said the policy was Nazi like or if he said the language used was Nazi like.
I think it fails the 'would X be defended if Y said it?' test. "You are talking about your incredibly cruel policy in language a Nazi would use" might not technically be saying the policy is Naziesque, but its not as though no Nazi comparison has been made.
Most people know that if you're going to draw a Nazi analogy you'd better be sure. A little bit sort of like the Nazis doesn't really cut it.
But it's undeniably true that there are echos of the language used in the 1930s in Germany, in the Immigration policy as announced:
"people who come here illegally will have their asylum claims deemed inadmissible" "modern slavery referrals for those who come to the UK illegally will be disqualified under public order grounds" "limiting the circumstances in which legal challenges will prevent someone from being removed from the UK" "strengthening detention powers so people can only apply for bail from the Courts (First-tier Tribunal) after 28 days"
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which politician of 1930s Germany do you think Lineker was alluding to? Since Hitler became chancellor in January 1933 do you think he meant Hindenburg?
I don't think he was alluding to any politician. He was rightly stating the the language used had similarities with that used in Germany in the 1930s.
It's the government that should be deeply embarrassed about that, not Lineker.
Absolutely they should be embarrassed by the language used - whether it has similarities to language used in Nazi Germany or not. And the policy is awful.
But if the comparison is to be defended, then what's the point in implying he did not make a Nazi comparison at all, when someone slips up and says he compared the policy rather than the language? It's a claim the Tories are talking about the people affected by their policy in Nazi like terms - that's a pretty precise line to draw.
It’s bang on and brilliant, but I think the “white, middle aged man” bit is not really necessary and a bit of an American import.
It’s a very accurate sendup of a certain type of documentary. The American influence is in the need to make this about race, age and gender. It needn’t be. Ade Adepitan’s Africa fits the genre, likewise the young Simon Reeve, and at various times have Joanna Lumley or Alice Roberts. All the same standard format and wow look at that scenes.
Is one of the products of (dare I say it) Lineker-gate, that the Tory's have blown a big hole in their own War on Woke, by demonstrating that their opposition to Cancel Culture in the name of Free Speech is just a lot of hypocritical Horse Poop?
Seems to me that philosophical libertarian turned practical authoritarian Ron DeSantis, and others of that ilk, run risk of running Republican Party onto the rocks following same course.
BUT the Savonarola of the Sunshine State is way savvier & strategic, than the current No. 10 No-Brains Trust.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which politician of 1930s Germany do you think Lineker was alluding to? Since Hitler became chancellor in January 1933 do you think he meant Hindenburg?
I don't think he was alluding to any politician. He was rightly stating the the language used had similarities with that used in Germany in the 1930s.
It's the government that should be deeply embarrassed about that, not Lineker.
Absolutely they should be embarrassed by the language used - whether it has similarities to language used in Nazi Germany or not. And the policy is awful.
But if the comparison is to be defended, then what's the point in implying he did not make a Nazi comparison at all, when someone slips up and says he compared the policy rather than the language? It's a claim the Tories are talking about the people affected by their policy in Nazi like terms - that's a pretty precise line to draw.
As I and others have said, the shameful echo is of British, not German, language in the 1930s towards refugees.
(When the Rwanda policy was first announced I expected international condemnation. International condemnation came there none.)
Didn't the UN refugee agency or whoever condemn it? Someone like that anyway, fairly predictably.
Not really followed if there has been more nation specific criticism, but I would expect that probably some leaders from parties on the left or presently unhappy with the UK government would do so, but that a lot of others would not be drawn on it, largely because they have problems with migration and refugee numbers of their own, and may be doing similar or worse, or be considering it.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Not sure that's that big of a distinction to be honest. 'An immeasurably cruel policy' as he put it (and many would agree), directed at the most vulnerable, in language akin to that of 1930s, that is Nazi, Germany.
I mean, he compared the government to Nazis whether he explicitly said the policy was Nazi like or if he said the language used was Nazi like.
I think it fails the 'would X be defended if Y said it?' test. "You are talking about your incredibly cruel policy in language a Nazi would use" might not technically be saying the policy is Naziesque, but its not as though no Nazi comparison has been made.
Most people know that if you're going to draw a Nazi analogy you'd better be sure. A little bit sort of like the Nazis doesn't really cut it.
But it's undeniably true that there are echos of the language used in the 1930s in Germany, in the Immigration policy as announced:
"people who come here illegally will have their asylum claims deemed inadmissible" "modern slavery referrals for those who come to the UK illegally will be disqualified under public order grounds" "limiting the circumstances in which legal challenges will prevent someone from being removed from the UK" "strengthening detention powers so people can only apply for bail from the Courts (First-tier Tribunal) after 28 days"
The language used by the Nazis was along the lines of “plague rats”, “vermin”, “race polluters”, “bacilli”, “poisonous fungus”, “We think he committed suicide because he could no longer stomach his inherent racial stench” etc.
What are the leaders of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc, thinking when they look at the state of politics in most western countries?
Arrogantly, and incorrectly, smug. Because they can see how the chaos could be worked to their advantage, but also wrongly think their less open political discord makes them eternally strong.
You drove two friends of mine off the site- @Charles and @Cyclefree - who I know in real life, and you've been personally abusive to me (repeatedly) for no reason other than the fact you dislike my politics.
If this is true the CHB3 wasn't the hero we deserved but was the hero we needed.
"Even before the administration’s announcement, refugee resettlement in the U.S. had dropped to historic lows during Donald Trump’s presidency, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of State Department data. As a result, the U.S. is no longer the world’s top country for refugee admissions. It had previously led the world on this measure for decades, admitting more refugees each year than all other countries combined. . . . For much of the 20th century, U.S. public opinion polls showed fairly consistent disapproval of admitting large numbers of foreigners fleeing war and oppression, regardless of official government policy."
So, until Trump, American leaders have been willing to accept large numbers of refugees -- in spite of the opposition of most of the public. We have been returning to that policy, now that he is out of office.
Very fact and vehemence of the debate on here, as to the degree to which Tory policy in 2020s resembles Nazi policy in 1930s, certainly shows an amazing degree of ineptitude by government politicos and their henchpeople responsible for messaging/propaganda.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which politician of 1930s Germany do you think Lineker was alluding to? Since Hitler became chancellor in January 1933 do you think he meant Hindenburg?
I don't think he was alluding to any politician. He was rightly stating the the language used had similarities with that used in Germany in the 1930s.
It's the government that should be deeply embarrassed about that, not Lineker.
Absolutely they should be embarrassed by the language used - whether it has similarities to language used in Nazi Germany or not. And the policy is awful.
But if the comparison is to be defended, then what's the point in implying he did not make a Nazi comparison at all, when someone slips up and says he compared the policy rather than the language? It's a claim the Tories are talking about the people affected by their policy in Nazi like terms - that's a pretty precise line to draw.
As I and others have said, the shameful echo is of British, not German, language in the 1930s towards refugees.
Sure, and thats a powerful point, but that's not what he said. It is interesting to consider whether the BBC would have acted in the way they have if he had though - technically the 'offence' of commenting would be the same, but would they have been so spooked by the government pushing?
Very fact and vehemence of the debate on here, as to the degree to which Tory policy in 2020s resembles Nazi policy in 1930s, certainly shows an amazing degree of ineptitude by government politicos and their henchpeople responsible for messaging/propaganda.
Henchperson is one of the great gender neutralised titles. Has an almost mediaeval guild air to it.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which politician of 1930s Germany do you think Lineker was alluding to? Since Hitler became chancellor in January 1933 do you think he meant Hindenburg?
I don't think he was alluding to any politician. He was rightly stating the the language used had similarities with that used in Germany in the 1930s.
It's the government that should be deeply embarrassed about that, not Lineker.
Absolutely they should be embarrassed by the language used - whether it has similarities to language used in Nazi Germany or not. And the policy is awful.
But if the comparison is to be defended, then what's the point in implying he did not make a Nazi comparison at all, when someone slips up and says he compared the policy rather than the language? It's a claim the Tories are talking about the people affected by their policy in Nazi like terms - that's a pretty precise line to draw.
As I and others have said, the shameful echo is of British, not German, language in the 1930s towards refugees.
Sure, and thats a powerful point, but that's not what he said. It is interesting to consider whether the BBC would have acted in the way they have if he had though - technically the 'offence' of commenting would be the same, but would they have been so spooked by the government pushing?
Probably not, though the government would have tried. Going Godwin is one of the faux pas of media. I remember my office media training and 3 golden rules: don’t name clients, don’t compare anyone to Hitler, don’t criticise individual politicians by name.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Hitler was the only one using language in Germany in the 1930s? Golly, he really was der Führer.
Reminder of what Lineker actually said:
There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?
And here's a thread that supports Lineker's assertion.
Note that Lineker did not mention the Nazis, Hitler or the Holocaust, or say the government is acting like the Nazis. He simply said there are similarities in the language used.
Some will think that he's wrong but he's entitled to his opinion.
Attempting to suggest that a Germany 1930s reference doesn't allude to Hitler and his gang is beyond feeble.
Of course Lineker could always clarify his comment by saying he was actually referring to the German communist party or Field Marshal Hindenberg.
But he wasn't was he.
And to the extent that the language used by the government dehumanises these people in the same way that the language used in Germany (yes by the Nazis) in the 1930s, Lineker is right.
So you've gone from saying that there wasn't necessarily a reference to the Nazis to claiming the government is dehumanising people in the same way as the Nazis.
Without of course providing any evidence to back up your claim,
Here's a bit of advice - those people who bang on and on with their Nazis claims only expose their ignorance of both the present and the past.
"Silicon Valley Bank collapse could spark the next financial crash – but we cannot bail out failed bankers again There is a real risk of a full blown bank run Matthew Lynn" (£)
"Hunt scrambles to protect UK tech from Silicon Valley Bank collapse Start-ups warn of 'moment of crisis' as industry leaders say many could be 'technically insolvent'" (via G search)
"Even before the administration’s announcement, refugee resettlement in the U.S. had dropped to historic lows during Donald Trump’s presidency, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of State Department data. As a result, the U.S. is no longer the world’s top country for refugee admissions. It had previously led the world on this measure for decades, admitting more refugees each year than all other countries combined. . . . For much of the 20th century, U.S. public opinion polls showed fairly consistent disapproval of admitting large numbers of foreigners fleeing war and oppression, regardless of official government policy."
So, until Trump, American leaders have been willing to accept large numbers of refugees -- in spite of the opposition of most of the public. We have been returning to that policy, now that he is out of office.
With respect to refugees in the USA, people who have done the most for people seeking refuge on these shores, and the bit in-between, have been churches. From a wide range of faiths, from Catholic to mainline Protestant to Evangelical, also Jewish and other non-Christians.
Somewhat ironic given support for Number 45 among many of these same folks. But true nevertheless.
The people most likely to actually give an actual family of actual refugee a real, personal helping hand. Like help finding a place to stay, furniture, groceries for the kids, a job (if legal) for the grownups.
ADDENDUM - at least that's what people who have been refugees tell me.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Or one could mention such jolly SA marching songs as “When Jewish blood spurts from the knife/then things go twice as well!”
Like you, I really haven’t heard anything similar from this government.
Lineker's thought process might have been:
1) I don't like the government 2) I am good therefore the government is bad 3) The government is bad therefore the government are Nazis 4) The Nazis murdered Jews therefore the government must want to do something similar
And yours, what’s the worst construction I can put on Lineker’s behaviour if I completely ignore what he actually said, and engage in some fact free mind reading ?
Perhaps Lineker can give some details as to what he means then by 30s Germany and how he thinks it compares with current government policies.
The quotes from Hitler etc are easy to find as I'm sure are those from Sunak and Braverman.
If not then he's just a frother spouting away on twatter.
Large parts of the world are either failed or unpleasant states.
These failed / unpleasant states have populations which are large and growing rapidly.
These populations also have views which aren't aligned to those of the western world.
But a significant part of the people with non-western views from failed / unpleasant states wish to move to the western world because the western world is richer than they can ever hope to be.
And if all these people are allowed to move to the western world then the western world will turn into a failed / unpleasant state.
I very much agree with your analysis. To my mind, the population in a failed/unpleasant state have two options.
The first is to do exactly what you have described, namely to leave said failed state and try and get to a better place to live. As you correctly say however, if they ALL did this, and ALL succeeded then yes, the western countries they were coming to would themselves turn into failed states due to (even if nothing else) there simply being far too many people in these countries and the local infrastructure not being able to cope anymore.
The second path, which is far harder to get people to do, is for the local people in the failed state to think, "You know what? I'm sick to death of living in a shit hole. But rather than move, I'll try and make our country a better place to live. Reduce corruption, introduce democracy, and start proper improvement programmes in our country."
In theory, if everyone who wanted to leave instead decided to do the second, I certainly think they'd be in with a shout of succeeding. Unfortunately for them: 1. The local rulers don't want them to succeed and are quite prepared to use force of arms to stop any changes being made. 2. Organising this by the local people is going to be virtually impossible. 3. I strongly suspect that the western world itself quite likes these places to be shit holes as it makes it easier to exploit them for resources anyway (and therefore, they'll support the local warlords/rulers in the guise of 'state aid' which said rulers immediately spend on themselves/building their army up).
Am I terribly far off the mark?
I agree.
There's certainly an element of western exploitation / meddling that has had a negative factor in some of the failed / unpleasant countries.
Though I would add that some of the population growth in these failed / unpleasant states is frightening:
Yemen's population is 33 million by 2021 estimates, with 46% of the population being under 15 years old and 2.7% above 65 years. In 1950, it was 4.3 million. By 2050, the population is estimated to increase to about 60 million
I cannot imagine how Yemen can possibly support such a population economically, environmentally or socially.
So what does that leave the people to do but emigrate.
Very fact and vehemence of the debate on here, as to the degree to which Tory policy in 2020s resembles Nazi policy in 1930s, certainly shows an amazing degree of ineptitude by government politicos and their henchpeople responsible for messaging/propaganda.
Henchperson is one of the great gender neutralised titles. Has an almost mediaeval guild air to it.
One thing upon which great minds that frequently differ, are now thinking alike!
Very fact and vehemence of the debate on here, as to the degree to which Tory policy in 2020s resembles Nazi policy in 1930s, certainly shows an amazing degree of ineptitude by government politicos and their henchpeople responsible for messaging/propaganda.
Alternatively it exposes the vacuousness, inability to rationally criticise and lack of practical ideas of the critics.
The ultimate LOL being if would-be illegal immigrants were actually deterred from coming to the UK by claims about Nazis.
Large parts of the world are either failed or unpleasant states.
These failed / unpleasant states have populations which are large and growing rapidly.
These populations also have views which aren't aligned to those of the western world.
But a significant part of the people with non-western views from failed / unpleasant states wish to move to the western world because the western world is richer than they can ever hope to be.
And if all these people are allowed to move to the western world then the western world will turn into a failed / unpleasant state.
I very much agree with your analysis. To my mind, the population in a failed/unpleasant state have two options.
The first is to do exactly what you have described, namely to leave said failed state and try and get to a better place to live. As you correctly say however, if they ALL did this, and ALL succeeded then yes, the western countries they were coming to would themselves turn into failed states due to (even if nothing else) there simply being far too many people in these countries and the local infrastructure not being able to cope anymore.
The second path, which is far harder to get people to do, is for the local people in the failed state to think, "You know what? I'm sick to death of living in a shit hole. But rather than move, I'll try and make our country a better place to live. Reduce corruption, introduce democracy, and start proper improvement programmes in our country."
In theory, if everyone who wanted to leave instead decided to do the second, I certainly think they'd be in with a shout of succeeding. Unfortunately for them: 1. The local rulers don't want them to succeed and are quite prepared to use force of arms to stop any changes being made. 2. Organising this by the local people is going to be virtually impossible. 3. I strongly suspect that the western world itself quite likes these places to be shit holes as it makes it easier to exploit them for resources anyway (and therefore, they'll support the local warlords/rulers in the guise of 'state aid' which said rulers immediately spend on themselves/building their army up).
Am I terribly far off the mark?
I agree.
There's certainly an element of western exploitation / meddling that has had a negative factor in some of the failed / unpleasant countries.
Though I would add that some of the population growth in these failed / unpleasant states is frightening:
Yemen's population is 33 million by 2021 estimates, with 46% of the population being under 15 years old and 2.7% above 65 years. In 1950, it was 4.3 million. By 2050, the population is estimated to increase to about 60 million
I cannot imagine how Yemen can possibly support such a population economically, environmentally or socially.
So what does that leave the people to do but emigrate.
Pretty much every country in the world was originally under some form of tyranny or dictatorship, but over the years ordinary people in western countries eventually managed to replace them with more democratic systems.
In something like 99% of instances - and that's conservative estimate - whenever someone compares something that somebody said or did to the NAZIS, they get a boatload (apt metaphor!) of backlash.
On generally reasonable grounds that their language and linkage is way over the top. Seen it a hundred time or more; general good advice is - don't go there, don't use THAT N-word either.
The Lineker Affair appears to be the rare exception. Why? Because of the government's own goal in securing his (at least temporary) suspension from the airwaves.
THAT is why I say, this is yet another fine mess you've gotten yourself into, Rishi.
In something like 99% of instances - and that's conservative estimate - whenever someone compares something that somebody said or did to the NAZIS, they get a boatload (apt metaphor!) of backlash.
On generally reasonable grounds that their language and linkage is way over the top. Seen it a hundred time or more; general good advice is - don't go there, don't use THAT N-word either.
The Lineker Affair appears to be the rare exception. Why? Because of the government's own goal in securing his (at least temporary) suspension from the airwaves.
THAT is why I say, this is yet another fine mess you've gotten yourself into, Rishi.
Not sure people realise just how big a deal the Silicon Valley Bank collapse is. They’ll find out on Monday. It will be carnage.
To coin a Twitter term, “this”.
It’s going to eclipse anything to do with small boats, Lineker or Ukraine next week.
How do you know this? For now it's just guesswork.
It’s killing off a large percentage of the tech startup sector in a single move. I don’t think we are going to see contagion, but it’s a very big story.
Previous governments home and around the world have printed money, picked money for free off trees, telling us how clever they are, and there will never be any reckoning for what they are doing. I feel Sorry for Rishi and Starmer as we now enter age of reckoning for what went on before.
Market mayhem is coming. I don’t know exactly when, maybe as soon as Friday of next week. But for certain a lot of that printed money when into stocks, over inflating them and the market.
It’s a pile of tinder just waiting for a spark.
Mark my words. A reckoning is coming. Beware the Ides. Beware the Ides of March.
The flame of Leon has been taken up !
Needs a bit more random capitalisation - but almost there!
At the same it's a nevertheless an interesting post from Lady Rabbit, though. I'm a bit unclear about this whole SVB business ; something else I've just read says only about 4% of their business is international, and that they have a "very limited presence in the UK market". Is this anything like right ?
The U.K. VC market is smallish. Plus I understand that quite a few startups liked the idea of using SVB
@Mexicanpete please don't go. You are one of the only people that makes this site bearable.
I have no plans but there is more to life than posting nonsense 24/7.
Garbage. Posting nonsense 24/7 is your patriotic duty.
Seriously - we will be left with @Leon23 if everyone leaves
It will still be a thriving debating forum. All 23 personas jockeying for position, bragging, offending each other and posting pictures of their lunch. You won't detect a difference.
In something like 99% of instances - and that's conservative estimate - whenever someone compares something that somebody said or did to the NAZIS, they get a boatload (apt metaphor!) of backlash.
On generally reasonable grounds that their language and linkage is way over the top. Seen it a hundred time or more; general good advice is - don't go there, don't use THAT N-word either.
The Lineker Affair appears to be the rare exception. Why? Because of the government's own goal in securing his (at least temporary) suspension from the airwaves.
THAT is why I say, this is yet another fine mess you've gotten yourself into, Rishi.
(With apologies to Laurel and Hardy.)
Do you think the Conservatives control the BBC?
They succeed in giving the distinct impression that in THIS instance, the answer is, hell yes!
Possible that impression might be modified, along line you indicate. However, right now appears to be going other way, hardening.
But like the lady said, tomorrow is another day. Scarlet O'Hara? Or Eva Braun?
This is surprising IMO. 550 seats being sold on a 900 seat train.
"Eurostar's situation in 2023
Eurostar report that demand for leisure travel is already back to 100% of its pre-pandemic level, whilst business travel has reached 80%-85%. However, Brexit border checks - an extra 15 seconds to stamp each non-EU traveller's passport - has reduced capacity at St Pancras by as much as 30%. As a result, Eurostar are running fewer trains compared to 2019 and they have limited the number of seats sold on some trains to avoid overloading check-in facilities at St Pancras - for example, on some peak departures only 550 seats are being sold on a 900-seat train. Overall, Eurostar say they are providing only 70% of the capacity they provided pre-pandemic. This means they're having to maximise yield from the seats they can sell (in plain English, higher fares) rather than continuing their original strategy of volume & growth.
Eurostar plan to increase the number of passport control lines from 7 to 9, and will convert part of the arrivals hall into additional check-in space. They plan to trial an 'online check-in' later this year, and to automate as much as possible of the new ETIAS (European visa) arrangements when they come in, probably now in 2024. They hope that these measures will restore capacity to what it was before the double disasters of the pandemic and Brexit. Until then, their direct services to Disneyland Paris and to Lyon, Avignon & Marseille will not operate, nor will their trains call at Ebbsfleet or Ashford."
There's certainly an element of western exploitation / meddling that has had a negative factor in some of the failed / unpleasant countries.
Though I would add that some of the population growth in these failed / unpleasant states is frightening:
Yemen's population is 33 million by 2021 estimates, with 46% of the population being under 15 years old and 2.7% above 65 years. In 1950, it was 4.3 million. By 2050, the population is estimated to increase to about 60 million
I cannot imagine how Yemen can possibly support such a population economically, environmentally or socially.
So what does that leave the people to do but emigrate.
Pretty much every country in the world was originally under some form of tyranny or dictatorship, but over the years ordinary people in western countries eventually managed to replace them with more democratic systems.
Yes, I agree, but taking my last point, unlike in the 18th and 19th centuries, as Britain and other European countries did democratise and industrialise, there wasn't other countries secretly, but actively, trying to stop that.
I do contend that in the 21st Century, some countries (and why not, I'll just pick China as an example) want failed states to continue to be failed states to better be able to exploit them and will take active steps to ensure that continues.
In the short and maybe even medium term, this might sound like a good idea. However, in the long term this is most definitely not. Perhaps this idea that China does look 'long term' is wrong headed. In the very long run, if the world doesn't improve overall, and many African states start to sort themselves out, I think the whole world could be in for a very bad time.
I have some belief that the answer to the Fermi Paradox is that when civilisations do advance to a certain point, they manage to destroy themselves (or at least blast themselves back into the medieval ages again). We might yet find the 21st Century really is when it all goes to utter shit. I hope I'm wrong, and if I'm not, I hope I'm dead before we find this out.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which was an equally stupid comment. But that is not the point. People should be allowed to make stupid comments without fear of their personal comments being used to push them out of their jobs.
By 47% to 34% the public do not think it is ever appropriate to compare government policy to actions by the Nazis
Yougov
That’s okay because it was the Government’s words, not actions, Lineker was so comparing. Which is why the public support him on this issue against the Tories, whose rhetoric has also been described as Nazi-like by Holocaust survivors. Who they also tried to ban as a result.
So you think that Lineker has been equating the government's words to gas chambers and starvation ghettoes ?
Which would be even sillier of him than equating the government's words to the words of Hitler etc - assuming that Lineker has even read Mein Kampf etc, which I very much doubt.
A few Mein Kampf references to Jews:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60].
...To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic... For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken
Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
I'm not up to date on what Sunak and Braverman's thoughts are on illegal immigrants but I suspect there's not much correlation with Hitler.
It took me all of five minutes to google Hitler's thoughts about Jews, come to the conclusion that they bare no resemblance to government thoughts about illegal immigrants and then copy them into a comment here.
Dos anyone think Lineker bothered to do any such checking ?
I'll also suggest that anyone spouting off about Nazi Germany is very likely publicising their ignorance about both the present and the past.
Surely yo could ave taken an other 30 seconds to record accurately what Lineker said?
Indeed.
The sight of a British prime minister standing behind a lectern with the slogan "Stop the Boats" on it - a deliberate hommage to the style used by Boris Johnson when he urged people to get with the national effort in the fight against an invasive killer virus, but this time it's supposedly undesirable people who are being spoken about - is indeed redolent of Nazi propaganda against "vermin" and "subhumans". Gary Lineker is absolutely right.
Surprised you don't make the point that the Nazis didn't make a big thing out of fighting immigration, ergo, and by the best possible logic, no anti-immigration nuts of today should be called neo-Nazis or viewed as having anything much in common with Nazis.
Emily Thornberry says Lineker went too far.
This is another example of how, when there's no political opposition to speak of, others step in, not because they're especially oppositional but because they have some backbone, and this marks them out from the official so-called opposition. Sometimes this role has been taken by the Church of England or Christian organisations such as the Trussell Trust. Why isn't the Labour party organising food banks? They've got a decent enough network to be able to do it if they wanted. They don't want. They couldn't give a toss. It doesn't occur to them. It would be far too down to earth and focused on opposing what the really existing government is allowing to happen in this country now, not whatever crap it might write in its next election manifesto in the distant future. Once upon a time even Oxford University voted against giving country-wrecker Margaret Thatcher an honorary degree. Conclusion: good on Gary Lineker.
In something like 99% of instances - and that's conservative estimate - whenever someone compares something that somebody said or did to the NAZIS, they get a boatload (apt metaphor!) of backlash.
On generally reasonable grounds that their language and linkage is way over the top. Seen it a hundred time or more; general good advice is - don't go there, don't use THAT N-word either.
The Lineker Affair appears to be the rare exception. Why? Because of the government's own goal in securing his (at least temporary) suspension from the airwaves.
THAT is why I say, this is yet another fine mess you've gotten yourself into, Rishi.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which was an equally stupid comment. But that is not the point. People should be allowed to make stupid comments without fear of their personal comments being used to push them out of their jobs.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which was an equally stupid comment. But that is not the point. People should be allowed to make stupid comments without fear of their personal comments being used to push them out of their jobs.
With one caveat: if their comment made it impossible for them to be seen to be doing their job in an impartial way, then it would be cause for dismissal / breach of contract.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.
The issue is not whether he is entitled to voice his opinions. The issue is whether it is acceptable to invoke the Nazis in support of them by suggesting the government is heading that way. Some people think it's a step too far and could be construed as bringing the BBC into disrepute. Other people can't see what the problem is.
Comments
Since the government and/or opponents would be outraged by any comparison to the Nazis, whilst its fair to be accurate about what he specifically said, it doesn't exactly erase the point if someone is saying 'He shouldn't have made a Nazi comparison', as that accusation remains accurate. People might still disagree with thinking it inappropraite, but the 'he talked about language not policies being Nazi like' I just don't see as a massively convincing point personally.
"people who come here illegally will have their asylum claims deemed inadmissible"
"modern slavery referrals for those who come to the UK illegally will be disqualified under public order grounds"
"limiting the circumstances in which legal challenges will prevent someone from being removed from the UK"
"strengthening detention powers so people can only apply for bail from the Courts (First-tier Tribunal) after 28 days"
Or was it something blander said in “1930s Germany” that Lineker is referring to?
The BBC aren’t the only muppets in this mess.
https://www.mapsofworld.com/answers/regions/division-global-north-global-south/
Whan the reivers found oot what Westminster had done,
They went aboot diggin up Stanes by the ton,
And fur each wan they finished they entered a claim,
That this wis the true and original Stane.
With a too ra li oor ra' li oor a li ay.
Noo the cream o the joke still remains to be telt,
For the bloke that wis turnin them aff on the belt,
At the peak o production wis so sorely pressed,
That the real yin got bunged in alang wi the rest.
With a too ra li oor ra' li oor a li ay.
https://electricscotland.com/culture/songbook/magic_stane.htm
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FKI8wwvY5mA
But if the comparison is to be defended, then what's the point in implying he did not make a Nazi comparison at all, when someone slips up and says he compared the policy rather than the language? It's a claim the Tories are talking about the people affected by their policy in Nazi like terms - that's a pretty precise line to draw.
It’s a very accurate sendup of a certain type of documentary. The American influence is in the need to make this about race, age and gender. It needn’t be. Ade Adepitan’s Africa fits the genre, likewise the young Simon Reeve, and at various times have Joanna Lumley or Alice Roberts. All the same standard format and wow look at that scenes.
Seems to me that philosophical libertarian turned practical authoritarian Ron DeSantis, and others of that ilk, run risk of running Republican Party onto the rocks following same course.
BUT the Savonarola of the Sunshine State is way savvier & strategic, than the current No. 10 No-Brains Trust.
Not really followed if there has been more nation specific criticism, but I would expect that probably some leaders from parties on the left or presently unhappy with the UK government would do so, but that a lot of others would not be drawn on it, largely because they have problems with migration and refugee numbers of their own, and may be doing similar or worse, or be considering it.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/07/key-facts-about-refugees-to-the-u-s/
"Even before the administration’s announcement, refugee resettlement in the U.S. had dropped to historic lows during Donald Trump’s presidency, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of State Department data. As a result, the U.S. is no longer the world’s top country for refugee admissions. It had previously led the world on this measure for decades, admitting more refugees each year than all other countries combined.
. . .
For much of the 20th century, U.S. public opinion polls showed fairly consistent disapproval of admitting large numbers of foreigners fleeing war and oppression, regardless of official government policy."
So, until Trump, American leaders have been willing to accept large numbers of refugees -- in spite of the opposition of most of the public. We have been returning to that policy, now that he is out of office.
Very fact and vehemence of the debate on here, as to the degree to which Tory policy in 2020s resembles Nazi policy in 1930s, certainly shows an amazing degree of ineptitude by government politicos and their henchpeople responsible for messaging/propaganda.
Without of course providing any evidence to back up your claim,
Here's a bit of advice - those people who bang on and on with their Nazis claims only expose their ignorance of both the present and the past.
There is a real risk of a full blown bank run
Matthew Lynn" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/11/silicon-valley-bank-collapse-could-spark-next-financial-crash/
"Hunt scrambles to protect UK tech from Silicon Valley Bank collapse
Start-ups warn of 'moment of crisis' as industry leaders say many could be 'technically insolvent'" (via G search)
https://www.ft.com/content/258d0732-d37b-49d6-8de8-b230a6568965
Somewhat ironic given support for Number 45 among many of these same folks. But true nevertheless.
The people most likely to actually give an actual family of actual refugee a real, personal helping hand. Like help finding a place to stay, furniture, groceries for the kids, a job (if legal) for the grownups.
ADDENDUM - at least that's what people who have been refugees tell me.
The quotes from Hitler etc are easy to find as I'm sure are those from Sunak and Braverman.
If not then he's just a frother spouting away on twatter.
There's certainly an element of western exploitation / meddling that has had a negative factor in some of the failed / unpleasant countries.
Though I would add that some of the population growth in these failed / unpleasant states is frightening:
Yemen's population is 33 million by 2021 estimates, with 46% of the population being under 15 years old and 2.7% above 65 years. In 1950, it was 4.3 million. By 2050, the population is estimated to increase to about 60 million
I cannot imagine how Yemen can possibly support such a population economically, environmentally or socially.
So what does that leave the people to do but emigrate.
The ultimate LOL being if would-be illegal immigrants were actually deterred from coming to the UK by claims about Nazis.
On generally reasonable grounds that their language and linkage is way over the top. Seen it a hundred time or more; general good advice is - don't go there, don't use THAT N-word either.
The Lineker Affair appears to be the rare exception. Why? Because of the government's own goal in securing his (at least temporary) suspension from the airwaves.
THAT is why I say, this is yet another fine mess you've gotten yourself into, Rishi.
(With apologies to Laurel and Hardy.)
Possible that impression might be modified, along line you indicate. However, right now appears to be going other way, hardening.
But like the lady said, tomorrow is another day. Scarlet O'Hara? Or Eva Braun?
"Eurostar's situation in 2023
Eurostar report that demand for leisure travel is already back to 100% of its pre-pandemic level, whilst business travel has reached 80%-85%. However, Brexit border checks - an extra 15 seconds to stamp each non-EU traveller's passport - has reduced capacity at St Pancras by as much as 30%. As a result, Eurostar are running fewer trains compared to 2019 and they have limited the number of seats sold on some trains to avoid overloading check-in facilities at St Pancras - for example, on some peak departures only 550 seats are being sold on a 900-seat train. Overall, Eurostar say they are providing only 70% of the capacity they provided pre-pandemic. This means they're having to maximise yield from the seats they can sell (in plain English, higher fares) rather than continuing their original strategy of volume & growth.
Eurostar plan to increase the number of passport control lines from 7 to 9, and will convert part of the arrivals hall into additional check-in space. They plan to trial an 'online check-in' later this year, and to automate as much as possible of the new ETIAS (European visa) arrangements when they come in, probably now in 2024. They hope that these measures will restore capacity to what it was before the double disasters of the pandemic and Brexit. Until then, their direct services to Disneyland Paris and to Lyon, Avignon & Marseille will not operate, nor will their trains call at Ebbsfleet or Ashford."
https://www.seat61.com/news.htm
I do contend that in the 21st Century, some countries (and why not, I'll just pick China as an example) want failed states to continue to be failed states to better be able to exploit them and will take active steps to ensure that continues.
In the short and maybe even medium term, this might sound like a good idea. However, in the long term this is most definitely not. Perhaps this idea that China does look 'long term' is wrong headed. In the very long run, if the world doesn't improve overall, and many African states start to sort themselves out, I think the whole world could be in for a very bad time.
I have some belief that the answer to the Fermi Paradox is that when civilisations do advance to a certain point, they manage to destroy themselves (or at least blast themselves back into the medieval ages again). We might yet find the 21st Century really is when it all goes to utter shit.
I hope I'm wrong, and if I'm not, I hope I'm dead before we find this out.
The sight of a British prime minister standing behind a lectern with the slogan "Stop the Boats" on it - a deliberate hommage to the style used by Boris Johnson when he urged people to get with the national effort in the fight against an invasive killer virus, but this time it's supposedly undesirable people who are being spoken about - is indeed redolent of Nazi propaganda against "vermin" and "subhumans". Gary Lineker is absolutely right.
Surprised you don't make the point that the Nazis didn't make a big thing out of fighting immigration, ergo, and by the best possible logic, no anti-immigration nuts of today should be called neo-Nazis or viewed as having anything much in common with Nazis.
Emily Thornberry says Lineker went too far.
This is another example of how, when there's no political opposition to speak of, others step in, not because they're especially oppositional but because they have some backbone, and this marks them out from the official so-called opposition. Sometimes this role has been taken by the Church of England or Christian organisations such as the Trussell Trust. Why isn't the Labour party organising food banks? They've got a decent enough network to be able to do it if they wanted. They don't want. They couldn't give a toss. It doesn't occur to them. It would be far too down to earth and focused on opposing what the really existing government is allowing to happen in this country now, not whatever crap it might write in its next election manifesto in the distant future. Once upon a time even Oxford University voted against giving country-wrecker Margaret Thatcher an honorary degree. Conclusion: good on Gary Lineker.
When, where and who made the decision to suspend Gary Lineker. Everything else will flow from that.
If Lineker was the BBC's main political correspondent, or presented the Nine O'Clock News, then he would be demonstrating a lack of ability to be impartial.
If Lineker was a judge, and Tweeted that all Scousers were criminals, that would similarly call into question his ability to do his job without prejudice.
But he's not. He's a sports presenter. He is therefore free to tweet his support for homeopathy, or his views on phrenology, or indeed his support (or opposition) to the current government.
If you only believe in free speech for people whose views you agree with, you don't really support free speech.