Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Lineker and Attenborough

1171820222326

Comments

  • Make no mistake, everywhere you look there is evidence of how the Tories have trashed the country. The broken asylum system is just one area. Hospital waiting lists, ambulance waiting times, increased homelessness and rough sleeping, depleted police force, falling rates of convictions, demoralised nurses, doctors, teachers, care workers. And that’s not all of it. Millions of pounds wasted by the Liz Truss experiment. Millions of pounds diverted to MP family, friends and Tory donors via the PPE scandal and illegal VIP channel awarding contracts during covid. Thousands of people killed by government failures when dealing with the pandemic. 

    As others have said on here, they are basically trying to play the Brexit card again as they did in 2019 in order to get re-elected as they are not able to point to a single thing that has been improved on their watch. They know the new bill is illegal and when it fails they can then set this up as a culture war against the lefty lawyers and the evil EU.

    Don’t be fooled again!
    It’s likely to work too
  • seth plum said:
    People can have different opinions, it is when those opinions are manifested in actions that hatred and division occurs.
    A vote is an action.
    Player of year?

     o:) 
    George Dobson at the moment.
  • In the 1930’s, fuelled by the Daily Mail amongst others, Jewish migrants were forcibly put on aeroplanes by the British authorities at Croydon airport and sent to Germany.
    Maybe Lineker should have pointed out on twitbook that the Tory hate speech was like Britain in the 1930’s.
    I wonder if the BBC would’ve suspended him for alluding to that truth from British history.

    Have researched this subject, please tell me where you got this information from?
  • In the 1930’s, fuelled by the Daily Mail amongst others, Jewish migrants were forcibly put on aeroplanes by the British authorities at Croydon airport and sent to Germany.
    Maybe Lineker should have pointed out on twitbook that the Tory hate speech was like Britain in the 1930’s.
    I wonder if the BBC would’ve suspended him for alluding to that truth from British history.

    Have researched this subject, please tell me where you got this information from?
    https://blog.ehri-project.eu/2017/01/01/photographing-refugee-deportation/
  • They said there wouldn’t be any BBC commentary on the WSL games today but I’ve just switched on and there is?
  • Valley11 said:


    Would like to like and lol at the same time.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Sorry folks the BBC wright to 
    Take action against Lineker.
    It needs to be seen as impartial. It is there to present the news and evidence of what is happening not make judgements 
    If Lineker had been sanctioned after tweeting in support of the government's refuge policy would there be the uproar we have now. Would his colleagues be taking action. I doubt it.

  • There is something totally ironic that Sunak is now concerned that the resultant distraction of the Lineker situation has distracted everyone away from yet another attempt, albeit a totally flawed and illegal one, to solve the refugee crisis (which was meant to be a distraction from all the ills caused by this Government in the last 13 years).
  • JaShea99 said:
    They said there wouldn’t be any BBC commentary on the WSL games today but I’ve just switched on and there is?




    The BBC are using a world feed for the commentary.

    No pundits or normal commentators.



  • edited March 2023
    .
  • Sponsored links:


  • JaShea99 said:
    They said there wouldn’t be any BBC commentary on the WSL games today but I’ve just switched on and there is?
    It’s world feed commentary, not a BBC one.
    I’m not sure how that’s any different?
  • JaShea99 said:
    JaShea99 said:
    They said there wouldn’t be any BBC commentary on the WSL games today but I’ve just switched on and there is?
    It’s world feed commentary, not a BBC one.
    I’m not sure how that’s any different?

    The BBC management have paid for the commentary that is being shown all around the world. No BBC freelancer.
  • cfgs said:
    Not getting in to the whole debate about the BBC, etc but MOTD without the punditry means more football, which is good.


    I will however say that if Mr Lineker knew anything about the rise of Hitler and his mob he wouldn't make the comparison. He owes an apology not to the government but to the memory of all those who suffered at the hands of the Third Reich.
    He didn’t make that comparison. He said some of the language used is not dissimilar. 
    Personally I think GL knew exactly what that implied. As we all know what followed the language in Germany.
    How do you think Hitler persuaded the Germans to put him into power. He employed hate speech and the demonising of a minority. If you cannot see any similarities between the language Hitler employed and what people like our Home Secretary are using then you need to look a little closer. Language is how it started, followed by removal of human rights. Ring any bells ? Resettlement to the east ! What direction is Rwanda ? 
    There's only so far you can stretch historical analogies, and I fear this is a step too far. 
    Which analogy is wrong ? 
    The Germans didn't put Hitler into power though democratic means. .
    If you think the language of our Government resembles Mein Kampf well....I cant really explain that to you.
    Your analogy is as much nonsense as suggesting a Corbyn vctory in the 2019 election would have resulted in Gulags up north and the purging of the Milliband brothers..

     

    By November 1932 the Nazi’s held the most seats in the Reichstag. In January 1933 Hitler was made Chancellor in a coalition, in much the same way that David Cameron first became  Prime Minister here.
    So you agree the Germans didn’t put Hitler into power by democratic means?

    I can’t recall Cameron arranging a fire at Parliament.
    The fire wasn’t how he came to power, it was how he made his power absolute.
    Exactly, Cameron eventually came to "absolute power" without a fire.

    ...and that's why this (and other) analogies are silly. 

    cfgs said:
    Not getting in to the whole debate about the BBC, etc but MOTD without the punditry means more football, which is good.


    I will however say that if Mr Lineker knew anything about the rise of Hitler and his mob he wouldn't make the comparison. He owes an apology not to the government but to the memory of all those who suffered at the hands of the Third Reich.
    He didn’t make that comparison. He said some of the language used is not dissimilar. 
    Personally I think GL knew exactly what that implied. As we all know what followed the language in Germany.
    How do you think Hitler persuaded the Germans to put him into power. He employed hate speech and the demonising of a minority. If you cannot see any similarities between the language Hitler employed and what people like our Home Secretary are using then you need to look a little closer. Language is how it started, followed by removal of human rights. Ring any bells ? Resettlement to the east ! What direction is Rwanda ? 
    There's only so far you can stretch historical analogies, and I fear this is a step too far. 
    Which analogy is wrong ? 
    The Germans didn't put Hitler into power though democratic means. .
    If you think the language of our Government resembles Mein Kampf well....I cant really explain that to you.
    Your analogy is as much nonsense as suggesting a Corbyn vctory in the 2019 election would have resulted in Gulags up north and the purging of the Milliband brothers..

     

    By November 1932 the Nazi’s held the most seats in the Reichstag. In January 1933 Hitler was made Chancellor in a coalition, in much the same way that David Cameron first became  Prime Minister here.
    So you agree the Germans didn’t put Hitler into power by democratic means?
    So who should have been Chancellor when the Nazi’s held the most seats won democratically?
    Whoever the President appointed.  
    It was President Hindenburg that appointed Hitler as Chancellor.

    You are misunderstanding what is meant by absolute power, it is the power held by a leader in an autocracy or dictatorship. Hitler achieved that by way of passing the enabling act after the Reichstag fire. He would not have been able to do that if he was not already Chancellor. But when you stated yesterday that he did not achieve power by democratic means you were incorrect.


    But not because he was the leader of the largest party. If that had been the case, he would have been Chancellor ahead of Von Papen and then Von Schleicher...So my point that the Chancellor was whoever was appointed by the President is correct.

    I fully understand the term "absolute power" ta very much...I used it in the context of Cameron to point out the nonsense of the analogies.

    Hitler didn't come to power by means of a democratic vote, but by the machinations of Hindenburg and Von Papen, but still without a majority in the Reichstag...
  • seth plum said:
    In the 1930’s, fuelled by the Daily Mail amongst others, Jewish migrants were forcibly put on aeroplanes by the British authorities at Croydon airport and sent to Germany.
    Maybe Lineker should have pointed out on twitbook that the Tory hate speech was like Britain in the 1930’s.
    I wonder if the BBC would’ve suspended him for alluding to that truth from British history.

    No surprise on the stance the Daily Express and the Daily mail took, But over two days: 29/30 March 1939, 498 people attempted to be accepted as refugees when landing at Croydon airport and only 20 were refused. It appears that most of the 20 came from the region of moravská ostrava/mährisch ostrau in former czechoslovakia, a centre of the coal and steel industry and a vibrant jewish community before the war.

    It's not clear why the 20 were denied entry.
    This is appertaining to the picture of the man being carried to the plane by Policemen.

    The devil is in the detail but most people had fuck all in 1930's Britain and worse was about to happen. 
  • msomerton said:
    JamesSeed said:
    msomerton said:
    Sorry folks the BBC wright to 
    Take action against Lineker.
    It needs to be seen as impartial. It is there to present the news and evidence of what is happening not make judgements 
    If Lineker had been sanctioned after tweeting in support of the government's refuge policy would there be the uproar we have now. Would his colleagues be taking action. I doubt it.

    I wish you’d pay people the respect of reading at least of the preceding posts. If you had I don’t think you’d have written this.
    Lineker might be a contractor, but the vast majority of his work is for the BBC and of course his current celebrity is due to his BBC profile. So i would reckon any court would rule he is to all intents and purposes an employer of the BBC.
    He isn't an employer or an employee, he is freelance, there is a big difference.
  •   But not because he was the leader of the largest party. If that had been the case, he would have been Chancellor ahead of Von Papen and then Von Schleicher...So my point that the Chancellor was whoever was appointed by the President is correct.

    I fully understand the term "absolute power" ta very much...I used it in the context of Cameron to point out the nonsense of the analogies.

    Hitler didn't come to power by means of a democratic vote, but by the machinations of Hindenburg and Von Papen, but still without a majority in the Reichstag...

    So exactly the same democratic means by which Cameron first became Prime Minister or was that not by democratic means either?

This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!