Gary 'the ears' Lineker is a prick - discuss

[Deleted member 15314]

To be clear, I know we can't cope with unlimited immigration, it has to be managed sensibly and fairly, and humanely. I just have zero faith in these cretins to be able to achieve that and I detest the divisive, nationalistic why they are communicating about it.

Boat crossings have spiralled upwards under this incompetent Tory Government - hence why they are now scrabbling to be seen to be doing something about it. It's all to distract from their disastrous Governance and their hilarious trouncing in the polls lately.

They don't really want to fix it, never mind trying and failing. Was, and will be, the same under Labour.

Nearly unrestricted immigration suits both parties and our corporate overlords. They've suppressed wages for dacades by using imported labour, especially in the low wage jobs. Immigration also helps to raise GDP, and the public are unaware of the fact that our GDP per capita has seen minimal improvement.

It works as a great distraction for both parties. One side goes with the "OMG immigrants gonna take over", and the other with "OMG the right wing Nazis hate poor, brown people".

 

[Ed Vanderlay]

I wonder what jug ears would say about the thousands of Albanians that want to leave their already safe country to come to the UK solely to make more wonga ? Where would his woke- ism stop? Perhaps allow Northerners to come down South and live in his back garden to improve their lives. He can feed them scraps from the kitchen then to make himself feel even more righteous and rise to the top of the virtue signalling tree. Gary mate just stick to football and ears., stuff you know about or the beeb will have to start a programme called "Woke Pratt of the Day".

I wonder what you would say if Clarkson was still doing Top Gear and said (hypothetically) I agree wholeheartedly with government policy

 

[spursmalc]

He's not in Government mate, he doesn't write policy. He can say what the fuck he wants, no different to you me or the bloke next door. If he agrees with the policy then he is free to say that, if he disagrees with the policy he's free to say that too.

No he is not, as a prominent employee of the BBC he has been warned before of making Political statements and he is bringing the BBC as his employer into it. He should be at the very least disciplined by his employer.

 

[Bazali]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, as I'm unaware of the situation with many of these migrants in their own countries. No doubt there are many who are legitimately fleeing their country in fear for their lives, but is there an element that sees Britain as a route to easy money? We have a history of looking after those seeking political asylum, so I have no doubt that there are those who seek to take advantage of our largesse, but are these a small minority?

I understand and agree with the need for stricter control of our borders, there are countries out there with far stricter controls than we have, and many are democratic countries. However, I really don't know what the new policy on immigration control will be, so it's difficult to ascertain whether Lineker is mouthing opposition rhetoric, or if he genuinely has a point.

What I will say is that I have been worried for years about the direction our country is heading in, from a political perspective. Media sources essentially acting as mouthpieces for whichever party they back, rather than challenging all of them on behalf of the voting public. Our media was supposed to be the voice of the people, instead it has become a tool to herd the mob.

Cameras everywhere. London in particular has the highest camera coverage of any city on the planet, with even more going in. "Security" is cited as the reasoning, but I have serious doubts about that security.

Maybe it's paranoia on my part, but I've felt the country has been heading towards a Police State for a while now. When decadence sets in, and it has most definitely taken root in Western society, it opens the path to Fascism. When we are blaming others for our ills instead of questioning our own apathy, because our "leaders" are pointing us in that direction, subtly or not, then we are taking the first steps towards losing our own freedoms.

Freedom of speech and thought has to be fought for. If it is taken for granted then at some point we will lose it all from a gradual erosion of those freedom's. We can kid ourselves that losing one or two, for the "greater good," is acceptable, but once you start that compromise, where does it end?

History has taught us these lessons over thousands of years, yet it happens over and over again because we become complacent and can't be bothered so long as we are still getting our creature comforts.

I look at the language being used in response to Lineker's comments and can't help but feel that there is a fascist mentality at play here. They are demanding that the BBC censor him, effectively demanding that he be silenced because he questions their motives. Yes he could have used a different comparison, but I'm not so sure he's that wrong here just judging from the reaction. Instead of addressing the comments in a democratic fashion, they're shouting for him to be silenced. That is fascism, the forcible suppression of opposition.

Lineker might be an insufferable twat, but let's not allow personal dislike of a person to cloud our own reasoning. His comments may be inflammatory, but sometimes they need to be to wake up an apathetic populace. I'd rather this, where people stop and think "does he have a point," than have these media people toe a political line and either just mouth platitudes or, possibly even worse, turn a blind eye to it because they are in a position of privilege that they don't want to have taken away from them.

He may be wrong in his thinking, as may I, but if he causes enough people to question/challenge their own apathy, get them thinking for themselves rather than letting media do their thinking for them, then surely this is a good thing?

No might about it mate

Lineker is an insufferable twat

As for the cctvs I think that they’re a good idea and have helped put away some nasty villains

It was Blair that advocated their increased use
One of his better ideas imv

 

[OffTheBench]

They don't really want to fix it, never mind trying and failing. Was, and will be, the same under Labour.

Nearly unrestricted immigration suits both parties and our corporate overlords. They've suppressed wages for dacades by using imported labour, especially in the low wage jobs. Immigration also helps to raise GDP, and the public are unaware of the fact that our GDP per capita has seen minimal improvement.

It works as a great distraction for both parties. One side goes with the "OMG immigrants gonna take over", and the other with "OMG the right wing Nazis hate poor, brown people".

Yes that's all fair.

 

[Dwarf_Sausage]

I wonder what you would say if Clarkson was still doing Top Gear and said (hypothetically) I agree wholeheartedly with government policy

I'm no fan of this government either, but this small boat business needs sorting and fast. The Australians would have fixed it years ago. Most of them are coming from already safe countries which makes the whole thing a farce. They're coming for the handouts. The minority that are genuine, such as from Afghanistan then fine.

 

[Ed Vanderlay]

No he is not, as a prominent employee of the BBC he has been warned before of making Political statements and he is bringing the BBC as his employer into it. He should be at the very least disciplined by his employer.

Andrew Neill was very good at being impartial in his interviews. He also had his own right wing views which he was happy to expand upon and rightly so . I don’t agree with him but would not try to cancel him

 

[Ed Vanderlay]

I'm no fan of this government either, but this small boat business needs sorting and fast. The Australians would have fixed it years ago. Most of them are coming from already safe countries which makes the whole thing a farce. They're coming for the handouts. The minority that are genuine, such as from Afghanistan then fine.

Well about 85% have their claims accepted . The government have chosen to create a backlog , make it an issue of its costing 6 million per day . If we processed them efficiently many many would be working and paying taxes , rather than costing us money .

Also we are all talking about this rather than what a shambles this government is and how they have screwed up continuously. Immigration wars is all they have and people are falling for it

It‘s so transparent , create a war on immigration, offer very drastic right wing solutions, solutions that will not work . Blame the left for the failure of an unworkable policy , hope that the base fall for it


What else can the Tories fight an election on , they have nothing else

 

[Guido 🇺🇦]

You do know that it's against the laws of this country to enter the country without coming through a recognised port of entry, with a passport, and the right paperwork filled in to say you are allowed to be here - just like pretty much any country with a legal system.
People can apply for citizenship if they can show that they will be victimised for religious, political or ethnic reasons and they will be allowed in if they meet the criteria.

If you just waltz in and break our laws you are a criminal.

The penalty for doing so has now been upped to repatriation.

We have enough issues in this country, supporting a workshy section of our own society, criminals in the system that is inadequate to hold them, and massive inflation of natural resources due to the knock on effects of a significant war that is capable of going nuclear - and dickheads on here are arguing the fucking toss about Gary Linekers opinion of the illegal immigrant situation.

FMOB

Wrong!

The rights of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are protected by international law, regardless of how and why they arrive in a country. They have the same rights as everyone else, plus special or specific protections including:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 14), which states that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries

• The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (and its 1967 Protocol), which protects refugees from being returned to countries where they risk being persecuted
• The 1990 Migrant Workers Convention, which protects migrants and their families
• Regional Refugee law instruments (including 1969 OAU Convention, 1984 Cartagena Declaration, Common European Asylum System and Dublin Regulation)

What the government is proposing is against those laws. The only illegal act is being carried out by the UK Government. It is this government that is trying to CHANGE the law to make it legal. THIS IS WHAT IS BEING OPPOSED!!!

What they are already doing is making it almost impossible for those refugees, asylum seekers and migrants (The terms “refugee”, “asylum seeker” and “migrant” are used to describe people who are on the move, who have left their countries and have crossed borders. NOT those that are still in their country of origin, this is also hugely important to understand as this governments rhetoric is to include displaced people currently in their country of origin in addition to those seeking asylum to make it look like there are a "BILLION" people seeking refuge - Bravemann this morning quoted that number on national TV!!!! Why? To get everyone shitting themselves about the real number looking for repatriation and she's done a good job as there are people in here today saying "we are full"!!!!

The terms “migrant” and “refugee” are often used interchangeably but it is important to distinguish between them as there is a legal difference.

Who is a refugee?​

A refugee is a person who has fled their own country because they are at risk of serious human rights violations and persecution there. The risks to their safety and life were so great that they felt they had no choice but to leave and seek safety outside their country because their own government cannot or will not protect them from those dangers. Refugees have a right to international protection.

Who is an asylum seeker?​

An asylum seeker is a person who has left their country and is seeking protection from persecution and serious human rights violations in another country, but who hasn’t yet been legally recognized as a refugee and is waiting to receive a decision on their asylum claim. Seeking asylum is a human right. This means everyone should be allowed to enter another country to seek asylum.

Who is a migrant?​

There is no internationally accepted legal definition of a migrant. Like most agencies and organizations, we at Amnesty International understand migrants to be people staying outside their country of origin, who are not asylum seekers or refugees.

Some migrants leave their country because they want to work, study or join family, for example. Others feel they must leave because of poverty, political unrest, gang violence, natural disasters or other serious circumstances that exist there.

Lots of people don’t fit the legal definition of a refugee but could nevertheless be in danger if they went home.

It is important to understand that, just because migrants do not flee persecution, they are still entitled to have all their human rights protected and respected, regardless of the status they have in the country they moved to. Governments must protect all migrants from racist and xenophobic violence, exploitation and forced labour. Migrants should never be detained or forced to return to their countries without a legitimate reason.

 

[Guido 🇺🇦]

No he is not, as a prominent employee of the BBC he has been warned before of making Political statements and he is bringing the BBC as his employer into it. He should be at the very least disciplined by his employer.

So let the BBC do something then. I don't give a fuck about their HR policies and his contract.

I agree with what he's said. Others don't.

 

[Guido 🇺🇦]

I cant ever log in to this forum without seeing your "opinions" splattered across every thread.
No wonder you're defending Lineker because you care probably cut from the same cloth.

Incidentally to give you a "fact" he's been given a dressing down from the BBC for his comments so that says it all.

I mean literally, you are here all the time giving your opinion on every damn subject as if you are so informed about everything. Sometimes it's better to show some modesty and keep your mouth shut.

Does the world need more "opinions" or do we need actionable solutions instead of constant nonsense tweeted by celebs who will go with what ever message or ideolgy is fashionable or beneficial to them?

Run along now.

Put me on ignore then you thick cunt!

 

[Mick Cooper]

Wrong!

The rights of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are protected by international law, regardless of how and why they arrive in a country. They have the same rights as everyone else, plus special or specific protections including:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 14), which states that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries

• The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (and its 1967 Protocol), which protects refugees from being returned to countries where they risk being persecuted
• The 1990 Migrant Workers Convention, which protects migrants and their families
• Regional Refugee law instruments (including 1969 OAU Convention, 1984 Cartagena Declaration, Common European Asylum System and Dublin Regulation)

What the government is proposing is against those laws. The only illegal act is being carried out by the UK Government. It is this government that is trying to CHANGE the law to make it legal. THIS IS WHAT IS BEING OPPOSED!!!

What they are already doing is making it almost impossible for those refugees, asylum seekers and migrants (The terms “refugee”, “asylum seeker” and “migrant” are used to describe people who are on the move, who have left their countries and have crossed borders. NOT those that are still in their country of origin, this is also hugely important to understand as this governments rhetoric is to include displaced people currently in their country of origin in addition to those seeking asylum to make it look like there are a "BILLION" people seeking refuge - Bravemann this morning quoted that number on national TV!!!! Why? To get everyone shitting themselves about the real number looking for repatriation and she's done a good job as there are people in here today saying "we are full"!!!!

The terms “migrant” and “refugee” are often used interchangeably but it is important to distinguish between them as there is a legal difference.

Who is a refugee?​

A refugee is a person who has fled their own country because they are at risk of serious human rights violations and persecution there. The risks to their safety and life were so great that they felt they had no choice but to leave and seek safety outside their country because their own government cannot or will not protect them from those dangers. Refugees have a right to international protection.

Who is an asylum seeker?​

An asylum seeker is a person who has left their country and is seeking protection from persecution and serious human rights violations in another country, but who hasn’t yet been legally recognized as a refugee and is waiting to receive a decision on their asylum claim. Seeking asylum is a human right. This means everyone should be allowed to enter another country to seek asylum.

Who is a migrant?​

There is no internationally accepted legal definition of a migrant. Like most agencies and organizations, we at Amnesty International understand migrants to be people staying outside their country of origin, who are not asylum seekers or refugees.

Some migrants leave their country because they want to work, study or join family, for example. Others feel they must leave because of poverty, political unrest, gang violence, natural disasters or other serious circumstances that exist there.

Lots of people don’t fit the legal definition of a refugee but could nevertheless be in danger if they went home.

It is important to understand that, just because migrants do not flee persecution, they are still entitled to have all their human rights protected and respected, regardless of the status they have in the country they moved to. Governments must protect all migrants from racist and xenophobic violence, exploitation and forced labour. Migrants should never be detained or forced to return to their countries without a legitimate reason.

its not wrong you arrogant arse

You cannot enter the country illegally without going through a port of entry, by doing so you break our laws.

I didn't say they couldn't come in as legal migrants or even as political refugees

I might as well smash my way into someone's house and say - its OK, I was cold and wanted a bed for the night. It's illegal to do so uninvited and without permission.

It's not even legal for you and me to do so because we lost our passport on holiday.

 

[Ed Vanderlay]

No he is not, as a prominent employee of the BBC he has been warned before of making Political statements and he is bringing the BBC as his employer into it. He should be at the very least disciplined by his employer.

He is not bringing his employer into it , those expressing outrage are

 

[Merl]

Put me on ignore then you thick cunt!

Ha ha, nice one - Showing your true colours now...

 

[mummy]

What is Labour's plan to deal with it? I mean one that they will actually implement rather than pay lip service to?

A little bird tells me you already know the answer to that

 

[Guido 🇺🇦]

Ha ha, nice one - Showing your true colours now...

Either debate or don't, how many times do you need to be told? But come at me personally and I will respond in kind as is my right.

Stick me on ignore if you are so triggered by my opinions no one is asking you to read let alone respond to them.

 

[Ed Vanderlay]

I cannot believe people cannot see what the Tories are doing

Let’s tell everyone we will put them on rockets to Mars , clearly it cannot be done chaps and ladies but the base will love it .

When we don’t do it blame the left for frustrating the Mars solution

 

[Guido 🇺🇦]

its not wrong you arrogant arse

You cannot enter the country illegally without going through a port of entry, by doing so you break our laws.

I didn't say they couldn't come in as legal migrants or even as political refugees

I might as well smash my way into someone's house and say - its OK, I was cold and wanted a bed for the night. It's illegal to do so uninvited and without permission.

It's not even legal for you and me to do so because we lost our passport on holiday.

It is NOT illegal for them to enter the UK because International Law exists that dictates they can ("they" = Refugee, Asylum Seeker, Migrant). If you are NOT a Refugee, Asylum Seeker or Migrant then it IS illegal for you to entre the UK.

 

[Bazali]

What is Labour's plan to deal with it? I mean one that they will actually implement rather than pay lip service to?

Open immigration?

 

[SpiderSpurs]

It is NOT illegal for them to enter the UK because International Law exists that dictates they can ("they" = Refugee, Asylum Seeker, Migrant). If you are NOT a Refugee, Asylum Seeker or Migrant then it IS illegal for you to entre the UK.

Why don't they (the illegal ones in the boats) stop at France?