[Football] Gary Lineker to step back from presenting MOTD

[Titanic]

Gary Lineker to step back from presenting MOTD

Gary Lineker to step back from presenting Match of the Day until agreement reached on social media use - BBC statement

www.bbc.co.uk

Gary Lineker is to step back from presenting Match of the Day until an agreement is reached on his social media use - BBC statement.
It follows an impartiality row over comments he made criticising the government's new asylum policy.
In a tweet, the presenter had compared the language used by the government to set out its plan to "that used by Germany in the 30s".

 

[Hugo Rune]

Firstly, if you think the SS and the SA were only concerned with the Red Front, then you must be wilfully ignoring their attacks on Jews, trade unionists, gays, social democrats...I could go on, but I hope you get the point.

Secondly, the existence of the Red Front and other militant anti-Nazi organisations doesn't prove the democratic nature of the parliamentary elections. Rather it is evidence of the impossibility of such democratic parliamentary elections.

The Trump slur is just as silly as your earlier attempt at ageism. If you want a real insight into how Hitler and the Nazi party gained power, go and have a look at Heartfield's 'Millions stand behind us' poster.

Louis MacNeice

I know how they gained power.

They took it after the democratic door was left ajar. Millions of Germans voted for them. That is why Hitler became Chancellor and took the Country.

I know who the SA and SS were always concerned with, it was Jews. It was the world Jewish conspiracy. For them, ‘lefties’ ‘gays’ or whoever their enemies where were Jews.

However, their focus in the 20’s and early 30’s was fighting against Red Front, I’m not sure they bothered with them again once they’d banned them in ‘33.

But the undeniable facts are that Hitler convinced millions and millions of Germans to willingly vote for him in the early ‘30s until he banned other political parties and elections became meaningless. Whilst there was clearly intimidation in the earlier elections, this was not the main reason he got the votes, he convinced the German people that he had the answers and they believed him. He used nationalism, patriotism, militarism and all the techniques of the right but mostly, language and propaganda.

Oh, and I don’t understand the alleged ageism slurs.

 

[Hugo Rune]

This is why I referenced the Anne Frank Foundation, which describes the election as legal.

Why I have used the word dangerous is because describing the Nazi's establishment of a government in early 1933 as democratic risks simultaneously legitimising Nazism and demonising the German electorate; both of which are obviously dangerous and just plain wrong.

Time for bed - Louis MacNeice

And there is the misunderstanding. I was talking about the 1932 elections.

Get some rest. Big day tomorrow.

 

[BadFish]

This is why I referenced the Anne Frank Foundation, which describes the election as legal.

Why I have used the word dangerous is because describing the Nazi's establishment of a government in early 1933 as democratic risks simultaneously legitimising Nazism and demonising the German electorate; both of which are obviously dangerous and just plain wrong.

Time for bed - Louis MacNeice

I don't think it risks either of these. Well among anyone who can appreciate the nuance of events.

If you consider this dangerous though wouldn't you also consider the denial of a democratic election dangerous on the grounds that we may ignore the possibility of an extremist government gaining power by legitimate means and then seizing a dictatorship power. As arguably happened in 1933 (depending on your definition of the events).

Surely the least dangerous way to think about the situation would be to consider it's nuance and all of the influences on that election based on it merits.

Again I argue that you are discussion semantics, and possibly the changing definition of the word democratic. You yourself seem to accept that at the time some considered the election democratic so surely to dismiss the notion entirely is somewhat disingenuous.

Anyway I am out of my depth historically so I will go back to being an interested observer of this discussion.

 

[Boys 9d]

Didn't the post war West German Government acknowledge Germany's guilt for the actions of the Nazis on the grounds that they originally came to power democratically?

 

[Wardy's twin]

Dangerously lazy?

Back to the history books for young Louis.

It’s naïve historical relativity to claim that the Nazi party did not get a majority of seats as some kind of valid argument. I’ve gone back into the 1800’s and no German party EVER got a majority. Germany always had coalition Governments. They had 6+ big parties vying for power, nothing like the 2 party FPTP system we have in the UK now.

The fire at the Reichstag was what arguably killed democracy in 1930’s Germany. But Hitler had got the votes before then. Millions and millions of them.

What Hitler did get was a larger percentage of the popular vote in the July 1932 Germany election than call me Dave got in his 2015 election win. The Germans were desperate but they fell for his ‘language’. He was one of the greatest (by that I mean most effective) political orators in History. A master of language, tone and speeches. A genius maybe. You need those skills to brainwash a nation. This was a genuine democratic election although I concede that his thugs were battling communist thugs.

Germany didn't really exist before mid 1800s so anything before that is not really relevant.. the following 60 years it was ruled by a military culture. It's not surprising that in the 1920s and 30s during its first real taste of freedom/democracy government it had problems.

 

[Berty23]

Re the Law -

Since the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 from 28 July last year (amending the Immigration Act 1971) it’s become much harder to enter the country legally, anybody entering the UK without a Visa and claims asylum will be in breach of Section 40 - anyone that requires leave to enter the UK (ie through a visa, citizenship or passport etc) and knowingly enters the UK without such leave, under the NABA, 2022 commits an offence. However, it is not possible to claim asylum from outside the UK, and there is no visa which allows people to enter the UK in order to claim asylum - Under NABA
this offence carries a maximum sentence of 4 years (5 years for people who re-enter the UK in breach of a deportation order).

Of course it is not illegal to claim asylum but the only way to do it (unless through a refugee resettlement programme) is to enter the country without documentation by arriving in a small boat or the back of a lorry and then make the claim once in the UK.

The misunderstanding is on the side of those that don’t realise that you have to have already broken the law by arriving in a Country without documentation and getting into the UK illegally since you can’t apply for asylum from outside the UK and there are no visas for Asylum seekers - and conflating that with the legality of then claiming asylum. Two separate issues.

When we refer to ‘illegal immigration’ we refer to people entering the Country illegally not the process of applying for Asylum once they arrive.

Nationality and Borders Act 2022

www.legislation.gov.uk

If you are entering to claim asylum then it does not apply. Go back through the thread. There is a very good explanation by a legal chap about this. If they enter without documents and don’t claim asylum they have broken the law. If they enter with the intention to claim asylum and do so then they didn’t.

 

[Berty23]

Re the Law -

Since the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 from 28 July last year (amending the Immigration Act 1971) it’s become much harder to enter the country legally, anybody entering the UK without a Visa and claims asylum will be in breach of Section 40 - anyone that requires leave to enter the UK (ie through a visa, citizenship or passport etc) and knowingly enters the UK without such leave, under the NABA, 2022 commits an offence. However, it is not possible to claim asylum from outside the UK, and there is no visa which allows people to enter the UK in order to claim asylum - Under NABA
this offence carries a maximum sentence of 4 years (5 years for people who re-enter the UK in breach of a deportation order).

Of course it is not illegal to claim asylum but the only way to do it (unless through a refugee resettlement programme) is to enter the country without documentation by arriving in a small boat or the back of a lorry and then make the claim once in the UK.

The misunderstanding is on the side of those that don’t realise that you have to have already broken the law by arriving in a Country without documentation and getting into the UK illegally since you can’t apply for asylum from outside the UK and there are no visas for Asylum seekers - and conflating that with the legality of then claiming asylum. Two separate issues.

When we refer to ‘illegal immigration’ we refer to people entering the Country illegally not the process of applying for Asylum once they arrive.

Nationality and Borders Act 2022

www.legislation.gov.uk

Interesting interpretation

House of Lords library. Note the use of “irregularly” rather than illegally.

2.1 Claiming asylum in the UK​

To claim asylum in the UK, a person must be physically in the UK. It is not possible to apply from outside the country, and there is no asylum visa. A person cannot obtain a visa with the explicit purpose of seeking asylum. Therefore, for individuals who do not have visa-free travel to the UK, they must enter either irregularly, such as by a small boat; by using false documents; or on a visa for some other purpose, such as tourism or study.

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/refugees-and-asylum-seekers-uk-policy/#heading-3

 

[jcdenton08]

Could do without the Albanian gangs, but that’s not an asylum issue.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I'm also an Aussie, and while I've been in the UK a while I was in Australia long enough to also understand the Aussie laws quite well (and also recently updated myself on them).

The proposed UK law goes beyond anything that has been implemented in Australia. The Rwanda policy is modelled on Australian policy, but the latest proposed bill takes it further. It is inhumane, and the Home Secretary herself clearly thinks it's more likely to be illegal (under UK's international law and treaty obligations) than it is to be legal - but they're going to push it through anyway, using a mechanism that effectively prevents the UK judiciary from striking it down despite it being illegal.

We turned boats back regularly.

Boat ‘turnbacks’ in Australia: a quick guide to the statistics since 2001

th[align="right"], td[align="right"] { text-align:right !important; } Updated 20 July 2018 PDF version [275KB] Harriet Spinks Social Policy Section This guide provides statistics on the number of boats that have been ‘turned back’ since the practice of remov

www.aph.gov.au

That is in violation of international law.

Operation Sovereign Borders, run by the Australian Border Force, within the Department of Home Affairs, maintains “it is Australia’s policy to turn back people-smuggling boats where safe to do so”.

“No one who travels to Australia illegally by boat is allowed to remain in Australia.”

That was 2021.

 

[Berty23]

Could do without the Albanian gangs, but that’s not an asylum issue.

Exactly. That Is something that could be stopped if we sorted out processing and sent people back. Unfortunately the process has ground to a halt which means everyone is lumped in together and an outsider and words like “invasion” are used. Tory MPs saying “we are full” when actually boat immigrants only make up less than quarter of asylum seekers. But the others are viewed at okay. It is nuts how the narrative is playing out.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Can't understand why this thread is still classified as 'football' (if indeed it ever should have been). Hopefully soon in the Bear Pit - Bozza's Albion only filter is a good idea, but there are interesting threads on other topics too. Still, I can just carry on ignoring this thread, as I have been doing for the last couple of days anyway.
Wonder what it'll take to get it shoved into there.......?

Why do you think a thread about Gary Lineker and Match of the Day might be on a football board?

Nevertheless, happy to ban you from it if it’s affecting you that badly. Just send me a PM and I’ll do the deed

 

[beorhthelm]

If you are entering to claim asylum then it does not apply. Go back through the thread. There is a very good explanation by a legal chap about this. If they enter without documents and don’t claim asylum they have broken the law. If they enter with the intention to claim asylum and do so then they didn’t.

by your own statement, until they've claimed asylum they acted illegally. also, if its legal to cross in a boat, why are we asking for legal routes to be provided? i dont know why people keep getting hung up on this issue, all you're doing to dragging the argument back to a side issue rather than policy. sure its better to use other language such as irregular or undocumented, it doesnt make the act of crossing a border by irregular means lawful. thing is people will cite rights and delarations when those documents are very vague on such details (literally one line in the original UN Declaration on Human Rights).

 

[LamieRobertson]

Why do you think a thread about Gary Lineker and Match of the Day might be on a football board?

Nevertheless, happy to ban you from it if it’s affecting you that badly. Just send me a PM and I’ll do the deed

 

[BadFish]

by your own statement, until they've claimed asylum they acted illegally. also, if its legal to cross in a boat, why are we asking for legal routes to be provided? i dont know why people keep getting hung up on this issue, all you're doing to dragging the argument back to a side issue rather than policy. sure its better to use other language such as irregular or undocumented, it doesnt make the act of crossing a border by irregular means lawful.

What makes it lawful is claiming asylum at the end of it. It is really as simple as that.

A brilliant job has been done of blurring the lines so now no one is sure. Job done for those that wish to push this rhetoric.

 

[Icy Gull]

I am fully expecting a Gary Lineker who will out smug Eddie Howe after a thumping Newcastle win on the next MOTD

With lots of bantz between the pundits too

 

[GT49er]

 

[GT49er]

Why do you think a thread about Gary Lineker and Match of the Day might be on a football board?

Maybe because it's all about Gary Lineker, politics, the Government, immigrarion and Germany in the 30s?

Nevertheless, happy to ban you from it if it’s affecting you that badly. Just send me a PM and I’ll do the deed

Thanks for your concern, but it's not affecting me. I'm happy to leave others to keep it going ..................... and I dare say they will!

 

[Eric the meek]

Maybe because it's all about Gary Lineker, politics, the Government, immigrarion and Germany in the 30s?

Thanks for your concern, but it's not affecting me. I'm happy to leave others to keep it going ..................... and I dare say they will!

Right everyone - he's given us the green light. He's ok with no mental health issues.
Let's pump this mother****** for all it's worth. We'll get it up to 3000 comments in no time!

 

[Wozza]

The STATE of this...

 

[5Ways Gull]

The STATE of this...

View attachment 158326

Is that from Nadine Dorries' new fashion range