[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".

 

[Eric the meek]

What are you doing? It wasn't Sunak saying that!

Whoops. My mistake. Gullis it was. I thought Sunak had quoted him, but that wasn't reported. Apologies.

 

[Javeaseagull]

Whoops. My mistake. Gullis it was. I thought Sunak had quoted him, but that wasn't reported. Apologies.

I’m not one to defend Sunak but could see this being sidetracked for a simple error, that’s all.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

If anyone thinks this whole episode is going to go away, I think maybe they should have a re-think.

Unlike Saturday's showing of 'Match of the Day'

Badum tish, as they say.

 

[Eric the meek]

I’m not one to defend Sunak but could see this being sidetracked for a simple error, that’s all.

Absolutely !

Once you had alerted me to my cock-up, I moved the fastest I've moved this century!

 

[Thunder Bolt]

After the good work that Tim Davie did to calm the waters and reduce the temperature, now this happens.

Here is what Sunak said:

'Let’s be clear, when I talk about upsetting people I’m talking about the Twitterati, the Wokerati of north Islington, those champagne socialists who pontificate all day.
“Those are the people I don’t care upsetting, because those are the people who want to call people up here racist bigots, Nazis, like Gary Lineker has done.”

This is language - and falsehood - unbecoming of our Prime Minister.

It was Jonathan Gullis, not Sunak!

 

[Mo Gosfield]

The distinction, at the moment, is that illegal immigrants, when caught, are deported after detention.

This bill, the government is pushing through, is to enable them to imprison every person landing without trial, for deportation, and not consider asylum claims.
This will make matters worse, because the boats will still land, but instead of asking for help, the landers will disappear into the black market, trafficking and other horrors.

A lot of the people landing are economic migrants ( usually young men ) who already have transport waiting to pick them up and whisk them off to the Black Economy somewhere in the UK. They are not the ones who need to ask for help. They have work provided and a roof over their heads. Their prospective employers subsidise some of their travel costs, in return for the guarantee of a cheap labour intake and cash in hand employment. A lot escape detection, alighting at night or the early hours. These individuals are looking to better their lot economically and are not looking to seek asylum. These men are not usually in mixed boats, with women and children.
On the other hand, there are many who are genuine asylum seekers, fleeing in desperation from persecution, imprisonment or worse. They stump up £15k-£20k of their hard earned life savings or scrape and borrow from family or friends, to end up in even more danger, aboard an overcrowded inflatable, in choppy seas, with no real idea of what awaits them. They are gambling on their futures. They end up in holding areas, seeking a hearing.
Meanwhile, the traffickers who are behind all this and are exploiting these people, are getting richer and richer, putting lives at risk on a daily basis and very few seem to get caught, proved by the steady stream of boats.
It is like dealing with foul pest by rounding up all the eggs and getting rid of them, whilst leaving the infected chickens running around. The problem has to be dealt with at source. The demand for asylum will still remain and countries will have to agree and support proper channels of movement for these people. We cannot allow them to be treated like animals ( nay..worse even ) by the scum behind all this.

 

[Guinness Boy]

But he did say he was against it, before carting the wheelbarrow full of cash to the bank.

People who hate Labour - "socialism would be terrible, the country would be ruined"

Also people who hate Labour - "I can't believe how much money that successful person earns"

 

[Eric the meek]

It was Jonathan Gullis, not Sunak!

Yes, thanks. Please see previous posts.

 

[Zeberdi]

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

The interpretation is that it is an offence under Section 40 NABA 2022 to enter the UK without requisite documents etc - it has been for years.

Once someone has claimed asylum (having arrived on UK soil), then they are immune from prosecution (although in practice, this is rarely pursued for practical reasons (given the high numbers of people involved) and is more targeted at people ignoring deportation orders or attempting to reenter the Country having already been removed) and have a legal right to remain. That is different to their status while attempting to enter the UK without documentation and prior to filing a claim for asylum.

“Claiming asylum is not illegal but entering or remaining in the UK without the required permission has been an offence for many years. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 expanded the scope of the offences and increased the maximum penalty for entering illegally to four years’ imprisonment. A person who claims asylum has the legal right to remain in the UK while their application is considered.”

It is the application for Asylum that provides immunity from prosecution and gives people the right to remain - the entering of the UK without leave/valid documentation is in itself an offence

 

[Audax]

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.



That was 2021.

Yes, and that's not a policy I support nor endorse. I am, however, willing to accept it as a) travelling to Australia by boat is / was far more dangerous than crossing the channel is, and b) was accompanied by other policy approaches that have significantly reduced the number of boats attempting to reach Australia.

What I am referring to with the UK situation is an accumulation of policy and legal changes that put the UK, IMO, in a more hostile-to-asylum-seekers situation than Australia. In particular:

Australia allows asylum claims to be made from outside the country - there is, therefore, no need for asylum seekers to make the trip by boat. Australia's problem with boats arose because asylum seekers were told that being in Australia would get their claim processed faster. Australia have ensured this is legally impossible and is part of what has reduced the number of boats attempting the trip. The average number of boats attempting the trip to Australia is massively down on what it once was, and Australia does not turn back all boats - it only does so if safe to do so and where it is unsafe they are brought on-shore in Australia. Conversely, the UK has now for some years removed the ability to make an asylum claim from outside the country. Those wishing to claim asylum in the UK must first have entered the country. The new law recently proposed now goes even further and proposes to permanently exclude those who arrive "illegally"* with an intention to claim asylum from being considered. While Australia have a similar legal framework in place, it has not been used in practice; there is what currently appears to be a permanent ministerial waiver in place.

There is also the topic that triggered this thread: the language being used by our Tory politicians. While I am aware some Australian politicians got pretty lairy with their language re: boat arrivals (a certain Pauline Hansen comes to mind), I don't recall ever hearing government ministers using the extreme language that UK ministers are using over here. In Australia the language was robust and blunt. Over here it has been, and increasingly so, crossing over into being dangerously inflammatory.



* It is debatable (see other posts in this thread) whether the current legal situation actually defines those who enter "irregularly" with the intent to seek asylum as "illegal" or not. Tory politicians would certainly have us believe they are "illegal migrants", but the actual legal situation is as yet robustly untested as far as I'm aware. The government has certainly found it difficult to actually convict / deport anyone under the existing legal frameworks, hence the new law they have proposed.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

Set the cap for refugees at 50% of the total deported the previous year. Then do it for 20 years. Those who want refugees would then be forced to sort the system out and it would begin to restore public confidence in the process.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

After the good work that Tim Davie did to calm the waters and reduce the temperature, now this happens.

Here is what Sunak said:

'Let’s be clear, when I talk about upsetting people I’m talking about the Twitterati, the Wokerati of north Islington, those champagne socialists who pontificate all day.
“Those are the people I don’t care upsetting, because those are the people who want to call people up here racist bigots, Nazis, like Gary Lineker has done.”

This is language - and falsehood - unbecoming of our Prime Minister.

Just in case it hadn't been mentioned, that wasn't Sunak who said that...

 

[rogersix]

I wouldn't have a clue what they will do, why, what do you think they will do?

lie

 

[rogersix]

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 hope this thread isn't discussed on the main board?

 

[rogersix]

As Rio Ferdinand would say 1 billion per cent Gary

you're very uncomfortable debating this topic aswell, why's that?

 

[rogersix]

No problem.

It's as good a contribution as many of the collection of outrage on one side, and virtue signalling on the other, posts which make up a good proportion of posts on a thread which goes political like this.

good input

i enjoy spending my time doing something positive

 

[rogersix]

Not yet. Give it time.

And it won't be mssed.

so nothing better to do then

 

[rogersix]

Oh dear. The Mary Whitehouse gambit. Desperate!

do a crossword, or a word search, something.............. colouring in?

 

[Weststander]

I love the stand of GL and other celebs against trophy hunting and the import of the murderous spoils.

A disgusting hobby carried out by scum.

 

[rogersix]

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!

whilst you and @lamie robertson watch on

pervy!