News Forum - Gary Lineker’s colleagues come out in solidarity, refuse to do MOTD

[Vigo]

Lineker's job was as a football commentator, not as a political commentator.

Political opinions are provided in a specific format that; 1. Informs the viewers that the  person is providing a political opinion and 2. There is an opportunity at some point to offer a counter view, or commentary.

The issue with Lineker is that he abused his position. The was retained as a footie pundit. if he want to offer political comment, then he  should go on the political commentary shows that are available, and agree to their rules of engagement. Lineker committed a wrongful act. He violated the  intent of his employment contract and he betrayed his employer.  The issue is not his political opinion, but  the manner in which he delivered it.

 

 

[JamesR]

2 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

You really need to read the quote. He did not compare the gov to the Nazis. He compared to the rhetoric to that which was prevalent in the 1930's. That included comments led by sources such as the Daily Heil, from Brits saying that they did not want Jewish refugees here.

As far as your third paragraph is concerned, do you not see the crocodiles tears coming from the gov's eyes? The gov could put a stop to this virtually overnight. All they need to do is to start a peliminary processing at Calais. Everyone takes a ticket. If the initial screening suggests that a candidate is likely to be granted asylum, they can board a cross-channel ferry: Cost £10. Then when they are in the UK, further screening before being denied or granted leave to remain. Are people going to pay €1000 and risk their lives in a dinghy, when they can travel in safety on a ferry?

Processing 100 claimants a day, last year there were 45k "illegal" entrants. 12k were Albanians, who would almost certainly be denied at the first stage. These would be the remaining customer base for the people smugglers. In most cases, the intercepted boats would be almost certainly full of people  who do not qualify for asylum, so they are straight into detention, and once processed, returned to their own country. I am sure that would seriously impact the smugglers business model. Again, how many times are people going to pay €1000, when they know they are going to sail into custody, and reasonably rapid deportation?

Based on your final sentence, I am not sure you understand about the duties imposed on refugees. They are under no obligation to remain in the first safe country, and it is recognised that there will be significant numbers who have family ties in the country that they choose as their final destination. Similarly, if as some of them have, given service to the UK and have had to flee their country because of this, do you not think that we have a debt to these people? 

"As far as your third paragraph is concerned, do you not see the crocodiles tears coming from the gov's eyes? The gov could put a stop to this virtually overnight. All they need to do is to start a peliminary processing at Calais. Everyone takes a ticket. If the initial screening suggests that a candidate is likely to be granted asylum, they can board a cross-channel ferry: Cost £10. Then when they are in the UK, further screening before being denied or granted leave to remain. Are people going to pay €1000 and risk their lives in a dinghy, when they can travel in safety on a ferry?"

I have to laugh, which planet do you live on?

We could do the same in banks, shops etc, we could save billions by dissolving the police force and any security we have in place and dismantle all security systems.

We could then have a system where everyone who enters a bank takes a ticket and if the preliminary process proves they are decent people they can then be allowed to roam at will in the bank including walking past the millions of pounds left on shelves as no security is needed as the people have passed the honesty test.

Nothing will be stolen as they have passed the initial five minutes test as it is possible to check everyone's honesty with a preliminary check.

 

 

 

 

 

[oldschooler]

3 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

You clearly have not read the tweet. Where does he mention Nazis? It was the Tory MP's who tried to infer that. You very easily fall for the populist rhetoric. Consider this: There are plenty of people who would like to see the death penalty, until they hang an innocent man. Does it not worry you that many of these people face death, torture or lengthy imprisonment if they are returned to their own country for crimes such as acting as interpreters for the British Army?

But there is a secondary matter here. We have obligations under the UN convention on refugees. What the UK is doing is to try to avoid those obligations by making it almost impossible for applications to be made unless they do so from their own country, very dangerous, or within the UK. But by refusing them permission to enter the UK, they don't have to deal with the applications. This is Catch-22.

It is your comments that are utterly naive ….and fail to address the main issues I detailed re. Lineker.
Referring to “ Germany in the 30’s” can mean only Nazi’s.Don’t think he meant the prior Weimar Republic ……

I never deal in rhetoric only facts, duties, responsibilities ….. tests which Lineker and his simpleton supporters have failed in spades.

These small boats people are economic migrants not legal refugees who must apply at “ first safe country” not cross the entire Safe EU to get into UK.

Anybody working for UK Govt. in Iraq or Afghan etc are of course legit refugees who should all have been directly accepted for UK settlement. 

 

[JohninDublin]

1 hour ago, JamesR said:

"As far as your third paragraph is concerned, do you not see the crocodiles tears coming from the gov's eyes? The gov could put a stop to this virtually overnight. All they need to do is to start a peliminary processing at Calais. Everyone takes a ticket. If the initial screening suggests that a candidate is likely to be granted asylum, they can board a cross-channel ferry: Cost £10. Then when they are in the UK, further screening before being denied or granted leave to remain. Are people going to pay €1000 and risk their lives in a dinghy, when they can travel in safety on a ferry?"

I have to laugh, which planet do you live on?

We could do the same in banks, shops etc, we could save billions by dissolving the police force and any security we have in place and dismantle all security systems.

We could then have a system where everyone who enters a bank takes a ticket and if the preliminary process proves they are decent people they can then be allowed to roam at will in the bank including walking past the millions of pounds left on shelves as no security is needed as the people have passed the honesty test.

Nothing will be stolen as they have passed the initial five minutes test as it is possible to check everyone's honesty with a preliminary check.

That really is a pathetic misconstruction of what I wrote. 

But as you have such a vivid imagintion, why don't you say how you would solve this issue? The reason I ask is that while you are treating this issue so childishly, has it occurred to you, that you might be dealing with a Trojan Horse? From what I've read of this scheme, I am pretty sure that if it becomes law, it will be struck down by the ECHR.

Before you start celebrating that idea, let's go back to your imaginary bank. One day you go in there and the bank says to you, "We'd like you to give up all your rights as a customer. So if someone steals your money due to our negligence, that's your problem". Would you agree to that?

Now we know that Cruella Braverman wants Britain out of the ECHR. She loses the case, and she starts a campaign to get us out of the Court, and she gets her way. Those who have supported this idea don't realise that what they've done is to give up all their Human Rights too. The only rights you will then, is what the gov are prepared to give you. And this will be because there are people who are too stupid to realise that leaving the ECHR because they don't like "forunners" some of whom are undesirables, having HR. 

Suddenly, they find themselves in a situation where they need those rights, and they will be saying, "I know I voted to leave the ECHR, but that was because I was against "forun" criminals. I didn't mean it to be applied to me annd my family".

Human Rights are far to precious to be given up.

 

[JohninDublin]

49 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

It is your comments that are utterly naive ….and fail to address the main issues I detailed re. Lineker.
Referring to “ Germany in the 30’s” can mean only Nazi’s.Don’t think he meant the prior Weimar Republic ……

I never deal in rhetoric only facts, duties, responsibilities ….. tests which Lineker and his simpleton supporters have failed in spades.

These small boats people are economic migrants not legal refugees who must apply at “ first safe country” not cross the entire Safe EU to get into UK.

Anybody working for UK Govt. in Iraq or Afghan etc are of course legit refugees who should all have been directly accepted for UK settlement. 

That was a reference to the Nazis pre-holocaust, That was also concurrent with many of the British people regarding Jews seeking asylum, in exactly the same way that we view asylum seekers today. 

If these people are economic migrants, why is it that with the exeption of the Albanian's who are rarely admitted, the vast majotity are granted asylum? 

Regarding your final paragraph, I agree with the thrust of that. However, did you see the chaos of our exit from Afghanistan? I've already explained this before, but ICYMI, the problem is that the gov is operating a Catch-22 policy to almost all asylum seekers. If you are in say Afghanistan, and you escape to a neighbouring country and apply to the British Embassy there, they will tell you that you should have made the application in Kabul. I am sure I don't have to explain to you the inherent dangers there. That being the case, the only other way they can make the application is to make footfall in the UK. The fact that so many of them are accepted after making the illegal entry to the UK, shows that they had an entitlement to see refuge here. 

The problem could be resolved by allowing them to make applications in third countries, but the UK will do it's best to repel all boarders, by making it impossible to make the claim from a safe third country.

[JohninDublin]

I've just discovered that this is the second time that Lineker has fallen foul of BBC impartiality rules.

In case you are wondering, the complainant was none other than the Tory Party. Anybody starting to see a pattern here? On that occasion, it was yet something else that they don't like scrutiny over: The acceptance of millions of pounds from Russians. 

Here is some of it: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/conservative-party-russia-donors-ukraine-invasion/

I counted over £3.3 mill in this list alone.

[Marble-eye]

7 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

Just to help you out, https://news.sky.com/story/a-history-of-gary-linekers-most-controversial-tweets-from-brexit-to-russian-donors-12829271

There is a section entitled Qatar World Cup.

I do wish people would do a bit of due diligence before posting such inaccuracies.

What I post I post with all its entirety and not like you who posts and purposely leaves out information because it would harm his point, many might call that deceitful, I know I would! Grumpish caught you out John, try to be a 'Honest John'. 

16 hours ago, Grumpish said:

I did do some fact checking, which is why I challenged your primary case. While correct, you gave a rather selective set of numbers, and failed to mention that some 40% of arrivals over the last year have been Albanian men (not the sensationlist 80%, but still very high). Albanian men fleeing exactly what?

 

 

[Khunmark]

7 hours ago, Vigo said:

Lineker's job was as a football commentator, not as a political commentator.

Political opinions are provided in a specific format that; 1. Informs the viewers that the  person is providing a political opinion and 2. There is an opportunity at some point to offer a counter view, or commentary.

The issue with Lineker is that he abused his position. The was retained as a footie pundit. if he want to offer political comment, then he  should go on the political commentary shows that are available, and agree to their rules of engagement. Lineker committed a wrongful act. He violated the  intent of his employment contract and he betrayed his employer.  The issue is not his political opinion, but  the manner in which he delivered it.

If the tone of this thread is to taken into account, your conclusion is fallacious. What I’m seeing here is what I always see on forums when the subject of freedom of speech arises I.e. two politically diametrically opposed groups, hunkering down behind their positions under the guise of the rights of individual  to express a position in the public domain. 
 

In this case, predictably , those on the right side of the political spectrum are critical of Lineker and those on the left are supportive and attempts to dress this up as something other than that is a smokescreen. Why can’t people be more honest with themselves and say I don’t agree him because it doesn’t align with my world view or vice versa. Instead of hiding behind some convoluted arguments over who has the right to a public opinion and under what circumstances.

[Pinetree]

11 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

Oh wow! Another person with Communists living rent free in his head! I can see that when it comes to free speech, you have nothing useful to say. As for Socialism, take a look at Norway one of the richest countries in the world, who have elected Socialst govs in 9 out of the past 10 General Elections. Doesn't your heart break for them?

I never knew that there were so many left leaning socialists on this forum. Ah well, it takes all sorts I guess. Good job we are all unknown to each other in person, as socialist views would not fit well into my local group of friends. I think that we would describe ourselves as 'slightly' left of center on most issues and we all hate football, so Lineker's views don't matter to us one way or another. 

[Pinetree]

1 hour ago, Khunmark said:

Why can’t people be more honest with themselves and say I don’t agree him because it doesn’t align with my world view or vice versa.

To me, its a deeper argument than that.  Free speech is sacrosanct.  Lineker can tweet what he likes.  Personally, I don't like him, or his sport, or his tone deaf stupid comments on Twitter, or the fact that as a millionaire football pundit, he thinks he has the only answer to everything.  However, I defend his right to say it.  What has angered me, is the media making such a song and dance about it, to the exclusion of actual news.  They are as bad as he is. He is just a bit dim, they should know better. 

[Rookiescot]

10 minutes ago, Pinetree said:

I never knew that there were so many left leaning socialists on this forum. Ah well, it takes all sorts I guess. Good job we are all unknown to each other in person, as socialist views would not fit well into my local group of friends. I think that we would describe ourselves as 'slightly' left of center on most issues and we all hate football, so Lineker's views don't matter to us one way or another. 

Left of center is socialist.

[Pinetree]

8 hours ago, JamesR said:

All they need to do is to start a peliminary processing at Calais. Everyone takes a ticket. If the initial screening suggests that a candidate is likely to be granted asylum, they can board a cross-channel ferry: Cost £10. Then when they are in the UK, further screening before being denied or granted leave to remain.

They tried that years ago.  I didn't work because most of the people trying to cross could never pass the first hurdle, as they were not true asylum seekers, but merely economic migrants, with no skills that the UK needed,  hence illegal crossings. 

[Pinetree]

2 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Left of center is socialist.

That was early morning finger trouble,  For left read right.  I was up all night with a frightened dog who thought the rain was the devil trying to kill him. 

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, Pinetree said:

That was early morning finger trouble,  For left read right.  I was up all night with a frightened dog who thought the rain was the devil trying to kill him. 

Sounds like the perfect excuse for an afternoon nap 

[Pinetree]

5 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Sounds like the perfect excuse for an afternoon nap 

I need very few excuses for that, but I always wake up feeling terrible, and disliking Lineker even more. 

[Khunmark]

1 hour ago, Pinetree said:

I never knew that there were so many left leaning socialists on this forum. Ah well, it takes all sorts I guess. Good job we are all unknown to each other in person, as socialist views would not fit well into my local group of friends. I think that we would describe ourselves as 'slightly' left of center on most issues and we all hate football, so Lineker's views don't matter to us one way or another. 

I’ve never understood why a group of friends should share the same political views; Do you surround yourself with politically like minded individuals purposely? And if so, is this because you’re afraid that someone with opposing political views might actually be likeable? I see that as being part of the reason politics is so rancorous. We tend to cast off those of different political leanings to ourselves as the ‘other’, without actually getting to know the whole person. I, personally, don’t take my politics that seriously.

one thing I have learnt over the years is people surprise you, both in good ways and bad on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[oldschooler]

8 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

That was a reference to the Nazis pre-holocaust, That was also concurrent with many of the British people regarding Jews seeking asylum, in exactly the same way that we view asylum seekers today. 

If these people are economic migrants, why is it that with the exeption of the Albanian's who are rarely admitted, the vast majotity are granted asylum? 

Regarding your final paragraph, I agree with the thrust of that. However, did you see the chaos of our exit from Afghanistan? I've already explained this before, but ICYMI, the problem is that the gov is operating a Catch-22 policy to almost all asylum seekers. If you are in say Afghanistan, and you escape to a neighbouring country and apply to the British Embassy there, they will tell you that you should have made the application in Kabul. I am sure I don't have to explain to you the inherent dangers there. That being the case, the only other way they can make the application is to make footfall in the UK. The fact that so many of them are accepted after making the illegal entry to the UK, shows that they had an entitlement to see refuge here. 

The problem could be resolved by allowing them to make applications in third countries, but the UK will do it's best to repel all boarders, by making it impossible to make the claim from a safe third country.

Refugee Status wrongly granted for  convenience as practically impossible to return these people.

UK owe such people Nothing. Stay in your shithole country and fix it ….or die trying…. as Brits did in UK over 700 years……. Those in UK Service can of course settle in UK. 
UK needs to take away the financial and settlement incentive to come here.

[JohninDublin]

5 hours ago, Marble-eye said:

What I post I post with all its entirety and not like you who posts and purposely leaves out information because it would harm his point, many might call that deceitful, I know I would! Grumpish caught you out John, try to be a 'Honest John'. 

I looked at multiple sources, specifically about the number of applicants who were granted asylum. When @Grumpish cited his figures, it was about the number of Albanians who were involved. Unlike Grumpish, I cited my source, which came up at 27%. That still leaves 73%. You accept his figure as correct without even asking for a source. You accuse me of not including facts because they might not harm my case. You don't even understand my case.  Which is not affected by the figures either way.

I originally cited 79%. Based on the BBC figures, my figures still stand at 73%. But what the BBC figures do not state, is how many of the Albanians were refused asylum. Probably most of them I grant you, but when I supply a figure that might be 7% out, and he supplies an unsourced figure, that appears to be 13% out, I am accused of dishonesty? I think the dishonesty is coming from your side of the argument.

This source states 75%: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/top-10-facts-about-refugees-and-people-seeking-asylum/#:~:text=4.,result of an asylum claim.

This source implies 76%: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/#:~:text=The percentage of asylum applicants,its lowest point since 1990. It's from official government figures. So if Grumpish is correct, how do you get 40% Albanians? It is he that is lying if you want to use brutal language, or has more likely relied n a very dubious source. I suggest that you ask him for his source anad then we might get to the bottom of that discrepancy. 

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to check the maths, or for the apolgy I am due.

[JohninDublin]

3 hours ago, Pinetree said:

I never knew that there were so many left leaning socialists on this forum. Ah well, it takes all sorts I guess. Good job we are all unknown to each other in person, as socialist views would not fit well into my local group of friends. I think that we would describe ourselves as 'slightly' left of center on most issues and we all hate football, so Lineker's views don't matter to us one way or another. 

And I never knew that there were so many people indifferent to human rights on this forum. You don't have to be a Sociallist to be in favour of human rights, but those who are opposed to them, generally favour totalitarianism, until they get to experience it.

[JohninDublin]

49 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

Refugee Status wrongly granted for  convenience as practically impossible to return these people.

UK owe such people Nothing. Stay in your shithole country and fix it ….or die trying…. as Brits did in UK over 700 years……. Those in UK Service can of course settle in UK. 
UK needs to take away the financial and settlement incentive to come here.

"Refugee Status wrongly granted for  convenience as practically impossible to return these people." And your source for this is....?

For the rest of your post, "Spoken like a true armchair warrior".

[Marble-eye]

26 minutes ago, JohninDublin said:

I looked at multiple sources, specifically about the number of applicants who were granted asylum. When @Grumpish cited his figures, it was about the number of Albanians who were involved. Unlike Grumpish, I cited my source, which came up at 27%. That still leaves 73%. You accept his figure as correct without even asking for a source. You accuse me of not including facts because they might not harm my case. You don't even understand my case.  Which is not affected by the figures either way.

I originally cited 79%. Based on the BBC figures, my figures still stand at 73%. But what the BBC figures do not state, is how many of the Albanians were refused asylum. Probably most of them I grant you, but when I supply a figure that might be 7% out, and he supplies an unsourced figure, that appears to be 13% out, I am accused of dishonesty? I think the dishonesty is coming from your side of the argument.

This source states 75%: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/top-10-facts-about-refugees-and-people-seeking-asylum/#:~:text=4.,result of an asylum claim.

This source implies 76%: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/#:~:text=The percentage of asylum applicants,its lowest point since 1990. It's from official government figures. So if Grumpish is correct, how do you get 40% Albanians? It is he that is lying if you want to use brutal language, or has more likely relied n a very dubious source. I suggest that you ask him for his source anad then we might get to the bottom of that discrepancy. 

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to check the maths, or for the apolgy I am due.

What you looked at and what you included are two different things, but it doesn't always pay to show the truth when you have an agenda.

Oh my life is in tatters and it's all the fault of the Tories, take a look at the opposition John and maybe you'll have a rethink, Labour thnks women have penis's.

 

[JohninDublin]

3 hours ago, Pinetree said:

They tried that years ago.  I didn't work because most of the people trying to cross could never pass the first hurdle, as they were not true asylum seekers, but merely economic migrants, with no skills that the UK needed,  hence illegal crossings. 

I am not aware that there ever was such a scheme, but I am aware that near the turn of the century, the initial refusal rate was 88%, most of which were later overturned on appeal. If ever there was such a scheme, I suspect that when the "Stop them all at Calais" plan failed, they closed it down, and that is when the policy of "Go back to your own country and apply there" started. 

[Havana]

On 3/11/2023 at 8:48 PM, JohninDublin said:

I am watching this unfold on Sky News as it unfolds. MOTD is to go ahead but without BBC commentators and Pundits. Commentary will be taken from the PL World Feed. 

In addition Football Focus has been cancelled after it's regular host joined the boycott, as has Final Score BBC Radio 5 Live which presents most of the sport on BBC Radio, has had to pull "Fighting Talk", though there has so far been no explanation as to why. Another R5 presenter has said he will not do his usual job of presenting the Saturday afternoon sports show.

The PFA has said that it will back any footballer that refuses to do a post match interview with the BBC, will have their full support. 

For those of you who don't understand the asylum process in the UK, let me explain: 

Basically, with the exception of the Ukrainians and Hong Kong, there are only two ways to claim asylum before without entering the UK illegally. The first is to apply at the British Embassy of your own country. That is hazarddous, if you are somewhere like Afghanistan. In the countries where you are most likely to be put at risk, you are likely to be picked up by local police and suffer at best. some tough questioning for entering a foreign Embassy. If you can make it to say France from Iraq, and apply to the British Embassy in Paris, you are told to go back to Bagdhad and apply from there. 

The second other legal route, is to apply from a refugee camp. The estimated average time to process such a claim, is said to be at least 8 years, while some estimate it at 38 years in some camps.

Of those entering the UK illegally, 79% are later given asylum. So there can be no doubt that most claimants are genuine asylum seekers rather than economic migrants. However, reading between the lines, you might possibly come to the conclusion, that the real policy is to prevent these people reaching the UK so that the UK don't have to deal with the applications. I understand that the two main cohorts (about 80% of the 79% = 63%) are Afghans and Iraquis, and upon arrival they are able to show that when the UK was occupying their countries, they acted on behalf of the UK or US Military, and that is why they are now at risk. 

We have international obligations regarding the protection of refugees, but we can ignore those if we can deny them access to the applications process. 

The current Home Sec, Suella Braverman came up with the "Rwanda" Policy, where the "boat people" were to be put onto a plane and deported to Rwanda which was considered a safe country. This was met with protests from Ugandan refugees who'd been granted asylum in the UK, who said that if Rwanda was safe, they would have gone there instead.SB was warned that the policy was illegal but ignored the advice from her own civil servants. The day of the first flight, there were 100 names selected. One by one, Lawyers obtained injunctions for 95 of these. As the injunctions were served, SB stated that the flight would take off, even if there was only name left. 

Then the European Court of Human Rights intervened, reducing the number to 4. At this point. SB reversed herself and cancelled the flight. The UK courts later declared the policy to be legal, but the gov can't move pending the final decision by the ECHR.

Following on from this, SB started making noises about the UK leaving the ECHR. Until Ukraine, the only European country that wasn't in the ECHR, was Belarus who come close to being a bandit country in my opinion. They enabled Russia to invade Ukraine, and shortly after this, Russia too withdrew from the ECHR.

I think the current plan is really a "trojan horse", to gain support for the UK to leave the ECHR. In short, there are lenty of idiots out there who don't like the idea that some very undesirable foreigners have rights, and they are dumb enough to give up their's and everyone elses rights to put a stop to the undesirables. For me, Human Rights are like a safety net. Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it!

Just a bit of info about what caused all this problem in the first place: SB tweeted complaining about left wing lawyers and ACTIVIST CIVIL SERVANTS, opposing her previous attempts to dealing with the "boat people". The lawyers responded by saying that if she were not acting illegally to begin with, they would not become involved. However, the Civil Servants were outraged, as they are required to be apolitical. A storm was brewing over her comment.

Lineker came to her rescue, when he tweeted: "the "immeasurably cruel policy" had been directed at "the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s".

Immediately attention turns to Lineker, who is accused of trivialising the holocaust by several Tory Jewish MP's. But the main thrust of the attack is that he has broken BBC rules about impartiality.

Well let's look at how well enforced those rules on impartiality are enforced? In both the 2016 and 2019 elections, Sir Alan Sugar who fronts the UK version of "The Apprentice" in tweets, compared Jeremy Corbyn to Hitler. More recently, he has tweeted aganst the current Labour Leader. Sir Keir Starmer.

In the 2019 election. a very senior BBC employee stood for Parliament on behalf of the Tories. In one of his campaign speeches, he described the BBC as "Full of Pinkos". He lost his bid for election and went back to working for the BBC. In both cases, no sanctions were ever imposed or investigations launched.

As for trivialising the Holocaust, none of the current compainant MP's said a word, when Boris Johnson called the EU, a "Nazi Superstate"

To me, it is clear that the Tory actions are about silencing and controlling the BBC. I would offer by way of proof a story in the print media, that has somehow not picked up but has similarities with Lineker. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/10/david-attenborough-bbc-wild-isles-episode-rightwing-backlash-fears

David Attenborough is probably the world's greatest living naturalist and still works for the BBC at the age of 96. He has recently completed shooting a new 6 part series on the wild life of the UK, but the BBC will not be showing the last episode. In recent years Attenborough has become increasingly concerned about Cimate Change, and is of the firm opinion that all govs could and should do more about this problem. Episode 6 deals  with Climate change. Sources within the BBC are suggesting that the BBC was leaned on to drop that episode by the gov.

Back onto the issue of "Impartiality" and the BBC, some of you may be aware that the current chairman of the BBC was appointed by Boris Johnson in rather dubious circumstances. At the time, Bojo was looking for a loan of £800k, and it was arranged by Richard Sharp. Shortly after this Sharp is appointed head of the BBC. In joining he is required to fill out a questionairre as due diligence to see if he might have any conflicts of interest. He fails to declare his part in obtaining Bojo's loan. When the news breaks, he is called before the Commons Media Committee where he states, that he did not think this presented a cnflict of interest.

 

Try some Imodium (orally).

[JohninDublin]

2 hours ago, Khunmark said:

I’ve never understood why a group of friends should share the same political views; Do you surround yourself with politically like minded individuals purposely? And if so, is this because you’re afraid that someone with opposing political views might actually be likeable? I see that as being part of the reason politics is so rancorous. We tend to cast off those of different political leanings to ourselves as the ‘other’, without actually getting to know the whole person. I, personally, don’t take my politics that seriously.

one thing I have learnt over the years is people surprise you, both in good ways and bad on both sides of the political spectrum.

Tough one that. Do I give you a thumbs up rr applause?

[JohninDublin]

4 minutes ago, Marble-eye said:

What you looked at and what you included are two different things, but it doesn't always pay to show the truth when you have an agenda.

Oh my life is in tatters and it's all the fault of the Tories, take a look at the opposition John and maybe you'll have a rethink, Labour thnks women have penis's.

Great response of obfucation after getting handed your arse. 

How do you know what I have looked at and what I have included are two different things? 

Have you figured out yet who is wrong when @Grumpish cites 40% are Albanians, most of whom would have been denied entry, and the 76% that the gov cite. That figure is not far out from my original source of 79%. Instead of indulging in petty childish jibes, why don't you explain how the gov's figures and those of Grumpish amount to 116%, That might restore your credibility as well as remove the embarrassment of needing to apologise for your earlier snide remark about "Honest John".

And if you really want to know, I am not encouraged by this Labour Party. All I can see from Starmer is far from sparkling. But what's the alternative? The Tories have ruled for 30 of the past 44 years, during which time, we've squandered all the money raised from Oil, Privatisations, Sale of Council Houses on tax cuts for the rich. How much better off would we have been had we followed SOCIALIST Norway's example and invested it in a sovereign wealth fund? 

But in spite of the way we have dissipated our wealth, we still find ways to continue to give welfare benefits to the rich by letting them eat at the trough of public procurement.