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

[Faz]

Let's stay on topic and refrain from the history lessons that have nothing to do with the topic.

If you can't agree to disagree civilly, then I suggest you use the 'ignore' option.

Moderator.

[Grumpish]

2 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

I don't need to admit that there are people who disagree with me. Do you really need me to state the obvious? That does not make them right.

"That does not make them right". In other words they are wrong and you are right - which pretty much sums up most of your argument. I don't wish to make this any more personal than you already have, but if you insist,  I will. 

[Vigo]

14 hours ago, Khunmark said:

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.

It is not an issue of "free speech". Lineker's right to express an opinion  in his own time and and space was not blocked. On the contrary, he abused  his position to deliver his political opinion on a subject for which he was not retained. He was there to give football commentary, not political opinion. This has nothing to do with whether his views are right or left. It's like having someone hired to host a cooking show, going off and giving an opinion of the latest football trades. that is not what the person is there for. It is incredibly unfair to inject  a political opinion into a format not set up for  political opinion discussion.

[JohninDublin]

11 hours ago, Grumpish said:

"That does not make them right". In other words they are wrong and you are right - which pretty much sums up most of your argument. I don't wish to make this any more personal than you already have, but if you insist,  I will. 

Putting words in my mouth does nothing for the paucity of your argument. If that's what I meant, that's what I would have said. Only time will tell who is correct. In my case, it will be whether the ECHR rules against Cruella's proposed law.

You can make it as personal as you want, but based on the quality of your posts to date, that will be water off a duck's back to me. 

BTW are you going to give us the source of your claim for "40% Albanians". <deleted content>

Edited March 14, 2023 by BigHewer
Provocative content removed

[JohninDublin]

51 minutes ago, Vigo said:

It is not an issue of "free speech". Lineker's right to express an opinion  in his own time and and space was not blocked. On the contrary, he abused  his position to deliver his political opinion on a subject for which he was not retained. He was there to give football commentary, not political opinion. This has nothing to do with whether his views are right or left. It's like having someone hired to host a cooking show, going off and giving an opinion of the latest football trades. that is not what the person is there for. It is incredibly unfair to inject  a political opinion into a format not set up for  political opinion discussion.

I think you make a very valid point about Lineker's role. However what muddies the water and quite possibly led to @Khunmark making his claim, is that there appears to be little sympathy for the "boat people", and almost no condemnation for which designed purely so that the UK can abrogate it's obligations under International Law with regard to the rights of refugees. But as we've seen in recent months, this is a gov that has admitted that it has little compunction about reneging on agreements. 

There is an issue of free speech, to the extent that the BBC code attaches to him 24/7, so even off duty, he is held to that standard. But if he perceives wrongdoing, what should he do? I've seen plenty of comments about him not complaining about the Qataris durin the WC. He actually did raise the issue, including LGBT rights, migrant worker deaths and corruption involving FIFA. The only complaints that he now faces regarding these, is (wrongly) by the mis-informed, that he said nothing. 

In this case, the comment was made in his own time on a non-BBC platform. That's how strictly he is regulated, that even this appears to be unallowable. Whether he had the expertise to make such a comment, appears to me to be an irrelevance. 

But he had the courage to stand for his own convictions, and would not back down in spite of the fact that he was putting a very well paid job at risk.

[oldschooler]

9 hours ago, Manu said:

Oh dear. I was quite enjoying reading this surreal debate over a few meaningless words from a former football player on a thing called twitter also known for some very weird reason as "social media". Priceless.

But then this comment... Or actually one sentence in that comment: "Stay in your shithole country and fix it ….or die trying…. as Brits did in UK over 700 years".

Why only 700 years??? Never mind that...

Actually the Brits did not stay in their "shithole to fix it" at all the past 700 years. What they did is going everywhere but staying at home, creating misery around the world, committing atrocities, stealing ressources of others by force, taking over their lands and ressources, and lives, and then coming back with all this stolen wealth in the UK to make what the UK is nowadays. If they had indeed stayed in their own "shithole" for the past 700 years, perhaps some current "shitholes" would not be shitholes at all so people would not feel they have to go the UK to escape death, persecution, hunger and misery. Just a thought.

Yeah right ……. India and Africa without UK colonization would have been veritable Utopian Paradises !

Would have invented railways, clean water systems, motor vehicles all by themselves ! 

[oldschooler]

10 hours ago, JamesR said:

I agree with all of the above except the first paragraph on freedom of speech, for example, I could publicly in the UK say get rid of the slovenly monarchy, or the government is rubbish, especially the PM, I could go on with other examples. (These are not my wishes but just examples of what we are allowed to say in public in the UK).

Now try and say that in some other countries, countries in which the authors of some of the comments on this site live.

Freedom of Speech is Absolute ….or Nothing…if Exceptions made it becomes substantially eroded as in UK but notably not in USA which still has Absolute Free Speech protected by Constitution. Blair just ignored UK Constitution …..

[oldschooler]

21 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

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.

UK Constitution, Laws & Courts provide more than sufficient Human Rights.

UK does not need lessons in human rights from Europe whom UK / USA liberated from their beloved Fascism and Communism, both invented in ….. Europe nor from UN / USA either…

UK First to Abolish Slavery (and Enforce with UK Lost Lives) WELL before any other nation. 

[JohninDublin]

8 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

UK Constitution, Laws & Courts provide more than sufficient Human Rights.

UK does not need lessons in human rights from Europe whom UK / USA liberated from their beloved Fascism and Communism, both invented in ….. Europe nor from UN / USA either…

UK First to Abolish Slavery (and Enforce with UK Lost Lives) WELL before any other nation. 

Haiti was the first country to abolish slavery in 1803. That was 31 years before the UK.

Communism was invented in the UK by Marx and Engels where they collaborated on the writing of Das Kapital. And back in the 1930's, there was plenty of support for Fascism in this country.

And of course, being British, we don't need to take advice from any foreigners, especially on HR. That's why weve been successfully prosecuted 327 times since 1975 by the ECHR. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8049/#:~:text=According to the Court's statistics,(144) found no violation.

You don't seem to be aware, that if we leave the ECHR, all the rulings in those cases will become void. I don't know your circumstances, but presuming you have a Thai wife, and you decide to reocate her to the UK, at present they cannot refuse because of stated case law at the ECHR. But with the gov determined to cut immigration, if we leave the ECHR, it's at the discretion of the gov, as to whether she be admitted or not. 

For those who scorn HR, I say again, they are like a safety net. Better t have them, and not need them, than to need them and not have them. I can never understand the logic of people who would give up something so precious.

[KaptainRob]

Thread closed as the original news item has been resolved and extraneous issues have crept in where they ought to be debated elsewhere, ie Expat Chat.