When? Where did I post those words or that thinking? Show me an example please.
Right, so that means I think refugee accommodation in hotels is the same as putting them in concentration camps? You are becoming offensive.
Well thatās what Lineker said, so if you agree with what he said then yes, thatās what you think,
Gawd donāt tell me youāre a typical itās ok for me to abuse, but itās my right to be offended by anything you say. Has that caught on in France now too.
1 Like
I guess that some might think this sort of statement:
and the latter part of this
might constitute evidence 
1 Like
I did not know that Lineker said the hotels used currently in the UK for refugees are like concentration camps. Iāve never to referred to that, as I did not know he said that. Not sure when he is supposed to have said that. Perhaps you could evidence this claim please.
Now perhaps you could be more balanced in your claims. Just because I agree that the UK government is using dangerously inflammatory language, which essentially what Lineker tweeted, that does not mean I agree with everything Lineker writes or says. For example, Iām no supporter of Leicester City. So your truly pathetic argument that āyou liked one thing he said, so you must like everything he saysā is patently false.
The risk of you becoming offensive is that you make a false claim, find a false & empty justification for your claim and that the notion of the claim itself is unpleasant. That is offensive, even if Iām not personally offended. Just amused about how you are flailing about.
In the meantime - exactly when did Lineker say the UK hotels for refugees are already concentration camps?
Except the claim is that I believe:
So my posts that note the chair and DG of the BBC are Tory supporters is not the same as saying either of these things. Iām suggesting they influence editorial policy and BBC actions. Equally, me saying that the BBC has crumbled early under pressure from the government and the tory press is not the same as saying the BBC is right facing or a puppet of the tories. Just that they leant, what is now clear, an early and poorly examined ear to this pressure. Not the same as being puppets - that is putting words in my mouth.
I know this might appear to be a nuanced point. The issue is that the BBC has tory oversight, is under threat to existence by the tories and there is scope for pressure from tory party / tory press. That means the news reporting from the BBC walks on eggshells all the time. It dare not be over critical of the tory government. It appears to give excessive airtime to those on the right (Farage for example). This ends up with something lukewarm in the middle, but more often unchallenged criticism of the left (train strikes, for example) and unchallenged gas lighting of the tory policy (austerity and cuts for example). Iāve stopped watching the BBC news because of this.
Some on this forum take the opposite view. This seems to be a view that the BBC is inherently left-leaning and woke (or whatever) and this core set of believes is seen in every report. Iād suggest it is simply the BBC attempting to achieve balance, but there you go. But this means I argue against those who say the BBC is always left-leaning as I do not see it that way.
The end result is Iām accused of claiming the BBC is right facing and a puppet of the tories, which is plainly not the case (in reality for the BBC or in my views).
I think you may be confusing the BBC with OFCOM Strathā¦Nobody transmits anything without OFCOM (whoās management belong to the HoL) approval, or suffer the consequences.
Thank you for the clarification. Iāve only just returned and havenāt been following the thread, and was simply providing potential āevidenceā.
You provided a fair challenge. I was thinking back to posts Iād done and wondering if Iād given the impression that I think the beeb is further right than GB News. Back to this thread, I still get the sense that the senior management acted poorly and in reaction to pressure. Add that to their clear links to one political party and I worry about the beebās independence (not puppet, just not able to take a fully balanced line of action).
Iāve not got a detailed understanding of OFCOMās remit and the degree of editorial control they have over all broadcasters. There must be some level of influence because Johnson wanted Paul Dacre to be its chair. (See, I managed not to comment on the track record of Dacre.) But I doubt if its the level of editorial and transmission micro-management that you appear to be describing.
To save me ploughing through the entire thread, has anyone considered the commercial impact of not having itās A team to present football matches, especially since the Beeb has to fight, along with other companies, for broadcasting rights?
I donāt think commercial implications were covered on this thread. And isnāt it quite complex? BT and Sky have the live broadcast rights for the premier leauge, the BBC does not. I think its got some form of āsummaryā re-broadcast rights, hence MOTD. But the beeb must have broadcast rights of lower leagues and cups as it does show these. But the big money is the premier league fixtures.
Do you really think that is what Gary Lineker wrote in his Tweet?
I only saw this Twitter exchange, which was commenting on the speech the Home Secretary made in the House of Commons to introduce her new policy on dealing with immigrants / refugees / asylum seekers arriving via small boats crossing the Channel.
I took the following Twitter exchange to mean that Lineker was comparing the exaggerated rhetoric used by the Home Secretary in her speech to the exaggerated rhetoric used in Germany in the 1930s to stoke fear and gain support for their policies from the population.
Linekerās comment makes it clear he is referring to the language used.
Lineker shares video of Home Secretaryās speech in the Commons and Tweets
āGood heavens, this is beyond awfulā
Another Twitter User described Linekerās comment as āout of orderā, adding that it was āeasy to pontificate when it doesnāt affect youā.
To which Lineker replied
ā 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 Iām out of order?ā
If he made any other remarks comparing refugee hotel accommodation to Concentration Camps, I havenāt heard of them - I think that would be out of order - do post the quote of exactly what he wrote about that - it may change my mind about supporting what he has written so far.
1 Like
1 Like
Iām amazed that nobody has asked why the Germans were speaking English in the 1930ās. 
1 Like
They all did in the old War films Iāve watched. ā¦ with a better, classier English accent than Iāll ever have.
1 Like
Iām guessing that this is in reference to my comments about protests outside hotels housing refugees. Iām assuming that you are denying that there is a causal link between the current government rhetoric, the amplification of these messages in the right wing press (example - everyone is called an illegal immigrant even before their asylum case is begun and no-one is called a refugee even though they may fleeing persecution) - and the subsequent emotional response in many. For some, a minority, this emotional response is expressed in demonstrations. Iām guessing you donāt see the connection.
So, Iāll ask - why the emotional and inflammatory language if there is no goal of triggering an emotional response?
If they enter this country illegally, then yes, they are an āIllegal Immigrantāā¦Someone on twitter reckons that it costs Ā£47 for an air ticket from Albania to the UKā¦How come they pay thousands and risk their lives sailing across one of the most dangerous shipping lanes in the world?
Could it be that they donāt need a passport? So they have to be treated as a refugee.
I donāt blame Lineker for what he posted, but I wonder what his cut off point would be with regard to illegal immigrants? When the authorities commandeer his house to house poor people like they did in Russia during the revolution?
Iām not so sure that this is the law. A refugee can enter any country, by unconventional or irregular means, and legally apply for asylum. They are not illegal at that point.
What you are describing, by referencing a country where persecution of citizens does happen but not on the scale of places like Syria, Yemen or Afghanistan, is clearly illegitimate attempts to falsely apply for asylum. But it is only at that point of confirming the false asylum claim that the individual can be described as having made an illegal attempt at seeking asylum. Up to then surely the individual can be given the view of innocent until proven guilty / illegal.
So it is 100% wrong to brand everyone coming across via irregular means as āillegalā. Wrong and inflammatory.