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

[Marble-eye]

8 minutes ago, JohninDublin said:

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. 

Would have been denied entry = flapdoodle spin. You do understand the difference between 'would have been' and 'have been', it is simply another case of you trying to be duplicitous and hope nobody notices. 

It may be a idea to get back on topic instead of your usual broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party and you ruining what was once a decent thread.

You really are very tender and brittle aren't you John, getting upset because I called you Honest John whereas it is alright for you to ask who my drug dealer is, hypocritical or what, be more consistant John and honest.

 

 

[Pinetree]

3 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.

Not at all.  I have been friends over the years with many people who do not share my political leanings, Mo Mowlem MP, a good friend was one, so was Frank Field MP to name two.  All were left wing even in the Labour Party, but good friends nevertheless. My present Thai based friends, all from different backgrounds and industries, all appear to share the same views of the World, and those in it, but I agree that alternative views can be entertaining, even if they are often wrong headed.  

[JamesR]

11 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.

"Those who have supported this idea don't realise that what they've done is to give up all their Human Rights too. "

"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".

Well as far as I know we have British laws which protect our human rights, they are not encapsulated in the ECHR laws.

So no we will not lose our human rights.

All I see is the the ECHR stops us from protecting our borders from illegal crossings by people who for some reason seem to be mostly men in their twenties from leaving a safe country (France) in order to get to the UK.

Many of them then disappear into the night once here.

A lot of people moaning about so-called human rights don't seem to mind a country like Thailand kicking illegal people out as soon as they are caught. 

[Pinetree]

1 hour ago, JohninDublin said:

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.

Who even mentioned human rights? 

[Pinetree]

58 minutes ago, JohninDublin said:

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. 

I knew of the scheme because I was a part of its implementation and operation while briefly working within the Ports industry 

[JamesR]

16 hours ago, oldschooler said:

Nothing to do with “ freedom of speech” which hasn’t existed inUK since Blair introduced legal protection from entirely valid criticism for the imaginary friend brigade , i.e. religions , followed by the ludicrous “ hate crimes” law.

I’ll break this down in simple terms as nobody here except Durian seems to remotely “ get” the real issue ; certainly not any thicko ex- footballer “pundits”:-

BBC = Public Tax Funded = IMPARTIAL=NO BBC Worker Political Statements NONE

Lineker+BBC=Massive Media Platform ;minus BBC = Virtual Lineker Media Oblivion.

Lineker Breach of Contract = Get FIRED Unless Issues Apology & Retraction of (Quite Stupid & False) Political Comments. No thinking person would miss any of his pundit pals either should they also wish to bugger off to Qatar where they would be instantly jailed for such comments there. 

Other Issue 1: Stupid Ignorant Comments Equating a Popular Illegal Immigration Control Measure by Free Democratic Nation Govt. ,with “ Nazism” ( Genocide, Gestapo, Death Camps etc. , I mean SERIOUSLY ?).

Other Issue 2: Selecting to Support Illegal- Entry Foreigners whose Cultures are Quite Incompatible with Free Western Democracy, who would cut Lineker’s Throat if so instructed by their Imams. Why not support UK Homeless, Poverty, Drug Abuse , Alcoholism, for example ? Answer : Wouldn’t boost his Twitter ratings.

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.

[JohninDublin]

2 minutes ago, Marble-eye said:

Would have been denied entry = flapdoodle spin. You do understand the difference between 'would have been' and 'have been', it is simply another case of you trying to be duplicitous and hope nobody notices. 

It may be a idea to get back on topic instead of your usual broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party and you ruining what was once a decent thread.

You really are very tender and brittle aren't you John, getting upset because I called you Honest John whereas it is alright for you to ask who my drug dealer is, hypocritical or what, be more consistant John and honest.

I used the phrase "would have been denied entry", because I do not know with any certainty if ALL of those claims were denied. If you know better, please cite your source. Your post has got me looking for Data, and I came up with this. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022

Extract: 

"In 2022, 85% of Albanians who arrived by small boats submitted asylum applications.

Only 68 of them (0.7%) have received an initial decision and none were granted refugee status or another type of leave to remain.

In general, 53% of claims by Albanians are accepted. Most are by women and children."

As for getting back on topic, what has your comment about the Labour Party and women's penises got to do with this topic?

And you know as well as I do that the comment "Honest John" was meant to be sarcastic and an insult. You are now obfuscating because it is clearly coming back to show you up. Own it!

My post is not and never was a broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party, but it seems all you've got is obfuscation. 

 

And if you can't see something wrong with @Grumpish and the gov's figure equalling 116%, then I have to conclude that you are either delusional, or you need to change your dealer. 

If you want to carry on in this vein, then all similar posts will be met with the reply: "Please explain 116%?"

[Manu]

2 hours 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.

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.

[Marble-eye]

7 minutes ago, JohninDublin said:

And you know as well as I do that the comment "Honest John" was meant to be sarcastic and an insult. You are now obfuscating because it is clearly coming back to show you up. Own it!

What was 'who's your drug dealer' meant to be, surely not a pleasantry, it you that is obfuscating, start owning up to what you say and not your usual deflection!

[BigHewer]

18 minutes ago, Manu said:

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.

A tad off topic, but here’s a thought too: Regionally, the “shitholes” formerly colonized by Britain are much better off than their neighbors colonized by other European countries. Again, just a thought.

[Marc26]

3 minutes ago, BigHewer said:

A tad off topic, but here’s a thought too: Regionally, the “shitholes” formerly colonized by Britain are much better off than their neighbors colonized by other European countries. Again, just a thought.

On a whole I wouldn't argue with that

 

But for personal experience I find that French colonized places left a much nicer places that still show through ij their food and architecture 

 

Luang Prabang, for instance 

 

I don't feel the Brits mark as much I do feel the French's 

[Grumpish]

59 minutes ago, JohninDublin said:

I used the phrase "would have been denied entry", because I do not know with any certainty if ALL of those claims were denied. If you know better, please cite your source. Your post has got me looking for Data, and I came up with this. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022

Extract: 

"In 2022, 85% of Albanians who arrived by small boats submitted asylum applications.

Only 68 of them (0.7%) have received an initial decision and none were granted refugee status or another type of leave to remain.

In general, 53% of claims by Albanians are accepted. Most are by women and children."

As for getting back on topic, what has your comment about the Labour Party and women's penises got to do with this topic?

And you know as well as I do that the comment "Honest John" was meant to be sarcastic and an insult. You are now obfuscating because it is clearly coming back to show you up. Own it!

My post is not and never was a broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party, but it seems all you've got is obfuscation. 

And if you can't see something wrong with @Grumpish and the gov's figure equalling 116%, then I have to conclude that you are either delusional, or you need to change your dealer. 

If you want to carry on in this vein, then all similar posts will be met with the reply: "Please explain 116%?"

Give it up. Just admit that there are people that don't agree with you, instead of trying to push your hate-the-tories "liberal" agenda down everyones throat. 

[JamesR]

51 minutes 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.

 

"......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.

Yes, for millennia many countries of the world tried that and failed, most countries were always at war with one another, it just turned out the British were more organised, used science and technology and so succeeded, the others failed and have moaned about it ever since. 

The wars have now changed form with economics being the new form of war, we all like cheap products produced by poor lowly paid slave-like people and accept it without any remorse. 

 

[JamesR]

34 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

On a whole I wouldn't argue with that

But for personal experience I find that French colonized places left a much nicer places that still show through ij their food and architecture 

Luang Prabang, for instance 

I don't feel the Brits mark as much I do feel the French's 

What about the 1.5 million civilians the French massacred during the decades of wars of independence in Algeria, I bet they were pleased about things. 

[Marble-eye]

Well here you have it, the BBC is to apologise to Gary Lineker for Lineker breaking BBC guide lines and he is expected to be back next week for the FA Cup and they are going to allow him to give his political ramblings with impunity. So much for the impartial BBC. One can only hope this pantomime will be the end of the public funded BBC, it should certainly speed up the process if nothing else. The lunatics are running the asylum now. 

https://news.sky.com/story/gary-lineker-latest-stars-pull-out-of-match-of-the-day-as-some-britons-cancel-tv-licence-over-bbc-row-12830851

[Marble-eye]

And here are the said guidelines.

 

2. Rules and expectations of social media use for all colleagues (employees, contractors and freelancers)

The following rules and expectations apply to all those working for the BBC, for professional (@BBC) and personal social media accounts.

1. Always behave professionally, treating others with respect and courtesy at all times: follow the BBC’s Values.

2. Don’t bring the BBC into disrepute.

3. If your work requires you to maintain your impartiality, don’t express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or ‘controversial subjects’.**

4. Don’t criticise your colleagues in public. Respect the privacy of the workplace and the confidentiality of internal announcements.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/individual-use-of-social-media

 

[Grumpish]

22 minutes ago, Marble-eye said:

Well here you have it, the BBC is to apologise to Gary Lineker for Lineker breaking BBC guide lines and he is expected to be back next week for the FA Cup and they are going to allow him to give his political ramblings with impunity. So much for the impartial BBC. One can only hope this pantomime will be the end of the public funded BBC, it should certainly speed up the process if nothing else. The lunatics are running the asylum now. 

https://news.sky.com/story/gary-lineker-latest-stars-pull-out-of-match-of-the-day-as-some-britons-cancel-tv-licence-over-bbc-row-12830851

And there you have it - another pointless celebrity given a get out of jail free pass. Plenty of other organisations, including many private companies, his comments would have merited a written warning (in the UK,  that is one more strike and you are out), at the very least. Plenty of others have had their careers destroyed for a lot less.

[Marc26]

1 hour ago, JamesR said:

What about the 1.5 million civilians the French massacred during the decades of wars of independence in Algeria, I bet they were pleased about things. 

My post was not about the morality of colonization 

 

But ok, in solidarity to your post I refuse to ever eat another Bahn MI!!!

 

PS.....That's a lie, I'm gonna still eat Bahn MI, but I will do so knowing @JamesR is not pleased with my lunch selection!!  :)

 

 

[JohninDublin]

3 hours ago, Pinetree said:

Who even mentioned human rights? 

I did. 

[JohninDublin]

2 hours ago, Marble-eye said:

What was 'who's your drug dealer' meant to be, surely not a pleasantry, it you that is obfuscating, start owning up to what you say and not your usual deflection!

Please explain 116%?

[Pinetree]

2 hours ago, Marc26 said:

But for personal experience I find that French colonized places left a much nicer places that still show through ij their food and architecture 

Like Vietnam?  That worked out well for everyone involved. 

[Marble-eye]

1 minute ago, JohninDublin said:

Please explain 116%?

If you don't like the way I post, report me to the mods, I do not owe you anything and I won't be intimidated by your bullish superior attitude. Stop patronising and baiting other posters too. You don't tell me what to post, comprendez. You'll find the report button top right of the post, it has 3 dots. HTH 

[JohninDublin]

2 hours ago, Grumpish said:

Give it up. Just admit that there are people that don't agree with you, instead of trying to push your hate-the-tories "liberal" agenda down everyones throat. 

Glad you've joined in again. You might be able to help @Marble-eye to explain where you got your figure for 40% of the asylum seekers are Armenian. On the basis of his good faith in your figure (that's code for: he was too lazy to check for himself), he decided to imply that I was fasifying my figures.

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. 

My issue from the beginning has been about Lineker speaking up in defence of the human rights of others. That appears to be something that very few contributors to this thread have concerned themselves with.

He almost certainly broke the rules, but he was prepared to put his head on the line, and for that, I think he deserves a pass for defending the human rights of others.

 

[JohninDublin]

17 minutes ago, Marble-eye said:

If you don't like the way I post, report me to the mods, I do not owe you anything and I won't be intimidated by your bullish superior attitude. Stop patronising and baiting other posters too. You don't tell me what to post, comprendez. You'll find the report button top right of the post, it has 3 dots. HTH 

Please explain 116%?

[Marc26]

1 hour ago, Pinetree said:

Like Vietnam?  That worked out well for everyone involved. 

You guys seriously don't understand what I wrote?

I like their food and buildings, that was what "from a personal experience" meant

 

I don't think the US should have invaded IRAQ, but I frigging love Schwarmas!