The Government

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well essentially they do that's the way it works, they hold such a massive majority that unless the party splits apart on issues they can basically get through whatever they want.

They're basically sitting tight for 18 months and praying that the labour party somehow shoots itself in the foot.
 
Shell by a stretch clearly have the most expensive forecourts in the country ( I refuse to use them) and simultaneously they announce record breaking profits.
Yet while the country continues with (and will do for sometime) the cost of living crisis, and soaring energy bills causing much hardship for even hard working families, this Government refuses to implement a windfall tax. It's truly shocking.
 
Every time I see Rishi Sunak I fear something terrible has happened to Larry the Downing St cat!
 
The Cider man seems to have gone rather quiet. He must be mourning the demise of wee Nicky and the Scottish dream :p
 
So what's the views then on-
1. The Gov's small boat policy?
2. Lineker's actual comments?
3. The BEEB's reaction to Lineker's comments on it
4. The reaction from Lineker's MOTD colleagues to his being stood down (not standing down)
5. And what should be the outcome?

I shall offer my views in my next post here.
 
So what's the views then on-
1. The Gov's small boat policy?
2. Lineker's actual comments?
3. The BEEB's reaction to Lineker's comments on it
4. The reaction from Lineker's MOTD colleagues to his being stood down (not standing down)
5. And what should be the outcome?

I shall offer my views in my next post here.

1. political grandstanding a policy that’s unlikely to make it past the legal review and they’ll use that to say it’s the courts that are to blame for migrant boats not Tory policy. They’ve run out of policies to campaign on for the next election it seems to me like they’re going to the last resort of “bloody immigrants” ruining everything. I really hope the average person is smart enough to see past this at the next election.

2. Not totally inaccurate but a tad exaggerated. The language being used is the sort of language I expect to hear from the BNP not the Tories.

3. A dangerous trap for the BBC to fall into laid expertly by the right wing press that wish to take them down. They should have done nothing and let the whole thing ride out.

4. Good on them this whole situation is ridiculous

5. Lineker will agree to mutual termination of his deal he gets paid some money to go quietly.
 
The whole thing is the Tory's trying to win votes because they know they have lost confidence on every other issue
The Tory language on this issue has been obscene and they are trying to create division.

Send them back where they came from, ffs it's like going back to the 70's

Yet the policy isn't being spoken about, because the right wing press are diverting attention by focusing on Lineker

This could backfire on the government and the BBC massively. And their Tory donor chairman
 
5. Lineker will agree to mutual termination of his deal he gets paid some money to go quietly.
Sounds to me like you are suggesting Lineker will button it and abandon the principle he was speaking up for in return for payment.
 
Sounds to me like you are suggesting Lineker will button it and abandon the principle he was speaking up for in return for payment.

Nope he agrees to a pay off where he doesn’t criticise the BBC.

He will know dragging this out through a long process risks putting the entire future of the BBC at risk.

He shouldn’t have signed up to the rules and regulations and broken them the BBC massively f*caked this up but they need to end it quickly now.

Are you going to give your answers?
 
Isn't the the Qatar thing the BBC did for the world cup political?
 
Isn't the the Qatar thing the BBC did for the world cup political?

it was and it was signed off by the BBC so he was reading from a script not giving his own opinion.
 
There’s a set of guidelines that all presenters including freelancers sign up to that includes how you need to conduct yourself on social media.

The BBC needs to remain politically impartial otherwise it cannot exist as a publicly funded organisation.

The BBC are the ones who messed this up by acting so fast and not just sitting back and let it blow over.
 
The BBC chairman and Tory donor coming down hard on one of their presenters for daring to criticise the Tory policies? Who saw that coming!

It’s a bit rich to do this to Lineker when there is absolutely no impartiality and independence at the very top of the BBC.

They have got themselves into one hell of a hole with this. No commentators and no pundits tomorrow night. They have got some FA cup coverage soon - although you’d think they would this sorted by then. I don’t watch MOTD really myself as I just catch the highlights on Sky Sports but can see it will probably feel a little hollow without pundits or commentators.

If I was Lineker I would tell the BBC where to go - as a freelancer he won’t be short of work. I don’t think he will back down from having opinions, so not sure how this will end.
 
It's also the right wing press, they instigated Brexit, basically they run the country by drip feeding nonsense to the masses.
How many articles has the Daily Mail run this week on illegal immigrants, they're not illegal. And all the stuff about lineker, so nobody is talking the policy.
It's do anything at any cost to get re elected so they can fatten their purses further.

The BBC need to stop dropping to their knees at Tory say so
 
So what's the views then on-
1. The Gov's small boat policy?
2. Lineker's actual comments?
3. The BEEB's reaction to Lineker's comments on it
4. The reaction from Lineker's MOTD colleagues to his being stood down (not standing down)
5. And what should be the outcome?

I shall offer my views in my next post here.
1. Whilst we should all have compassion for those fleeing persecution and/or poverty there does need to be illegal migration deterrent. The problem cannot be ignored, the treacherous journey's being made cannot be ignored, the criminals exploiting these people and organising these journeys cannot be ignored and the location they board these boats is not an unsafe place. The current situation cannot be allowed to continue. I am unsure what Lineker's view of the policy is as the view he has expressed appears to be about the language being used around the policy and not the policy itself.
2. Lineker's comments are totally exaggerated and akin to vitriol in my opinion. can somebody give me some quotes that can be compared to the Nazi's from the 30's ? If no such comparison can actually be found maybe Lineker should admit he overstepped the mark and vow to choose his words more carefully in the future. What is he actually speaking up against? Is it the policy itself?
3. The biggest concern with the BEEBs response is that it could be considered an impartiality breach in itself given what we know about their Richard Sharp and of course it may be the Government that applied pressure for such a response.
4. I have to presume Lineker's colleagues are reacting in support of free speech (and very possibly hypocrisy). If we were to put the hypocrisy aside it is a difficult one to determine the required free speech boundries for someone who is so closely associated with the BBC
5. I dont know what the outcome should be but I dont think we will see Lineker on the BBC again and it is anyone's guess how the rest of it will unfurl and to what extent others support him. Hopefully it will all turn into such a shit storm it will bring this F****** government down once and for all.
 
For the record he never made comments comparing them to the Nazi's. He said 'this is worth a read' about an article that did.
 
“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 I’m out of order?”

That is what he tweeted and the tweet I believe has been deleted so I had to copy a screenshot.

The language he refers to is most likely the use of words like Vermin, Swarm and Invasion which have been used by Tory MPs and Ministers including the current Home Secretary . This is the sort of language the Nazi’s used in their propaganda to try and win over the working class during their rise to power.

The people crossing in small boats are not Vermin or an invading force they are people leaving a sh*t situation in their own country and trying to make a better life. We have a duty to take in genuine asylum seekers which is what current laws allow and under new laws even those smuggled against their will by gangs would be kicked out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RVN
Do you have any quotes to support this? It would be interesting for us to see in what context such words have been used. In particular it would be interesting to see who has been referring to people as vermin.
 
Do you have any quotes to support this? It would be interesting for us to see in what context such words have been used. In particular it would be interesting to see who has been referring to people as vermin.
In what context would it be to use them in an acceptable manor?


Scourge and Invasion both used in parliament by the Home Secretary.
 
It's looking like the BBC are about to issue a grovelling apology. Probably the only course left open to them.
 
In what context would it be to use them in an acceptable manor?


Scourge and Invasion both used in parliament by the Home Secretary.
That is indeed an unfortunate choice of words and I would say influx would have been more appropriate. As previously stated I was particularly interested in the use of the word vermin. Did you add that for effect?
Regardless of all. something does need to be done to address this problem. There are bodies of young people floating in the sea's.
Italy's government are currently under huge pressure with influx from North Africa and Turkey. 1300 migrants have just been rescued from overloaded boats in 3 separate operations. 17000 have reached Italy this year alone and hundreds have died.
There are currently robust talks for a joint European effort to strengthen the EU's borders. The quicker the focus gets back on the actual problem the better instead of all the focus on language.
Its very easy to be swayed, and see this as opportunity to attack the BBC and the Government whilst offering full support to goody two shoes Lineker. But this is deflecting away from the problem and what needs to be done about it.
 
My question on this is:

How can someone travel from Syria, say, across half the world, and find someone to pay to get them across the channel. But none of the authorities can find these people
 
That is indeed an unfortunate choice of words and I would say influx would have been more appropriate. As previously stated I was particularly interested in the use of the word vermin. Did you add that for effect?
Regardless of all. something does need to be done to address this problem. There are bodies of young people floating in the sea's.
Italy's government are currently under huge pressure with influx from North Africa and Turkey. 1300 migrants have just been rescued from overloaded boats in 3 separate operations. 17000 have reached Italy this year alone and hundreds have died.
There are currently robust talks for a joint European effort to strengthen the EU's borders. The quicker the focus gets back on the actual problem the better instead of all the focus on language.
Its very easy to be swayed, and see this as opportunity to attack the BBC and the Government whilst offering full support to goody two shoes Lineker. But this is deflecting away from the problem and what needs to be done about it.

Vermin wasn’t used by an MP I’ll take that back but it has been used in the media to describe opponents and I will add the labour MP who used the word scum in reference to the Tories, the political classes need to be a lot more restrained in the language they use. “Stop the Boats” sounds very much like the “Build the wall” slogan used in America and the divide and rule tactics used in politics is not healthy for a democracy.

I do agree there’s an issue but having a policy that basically rejects anyone who’s risked their lives in desperation regardless of the validity of the claim cannot be the solution. Also, returning them to a third country such as Rwanda also makes no sense to me. If they can’t be returned to their country of origin on genuine safety grounds then surely they have a reasonable claim to asylum.

This deterrent approach is unlikely to stop the smugglers trying to get people in and it’ll likely mean those arriving become illegal immigrants rather than making an application to stay.

I also think there are much bigger issues to resolve in the country right now.
 
Vermin wasn’t used by an MP I’ll take that back but it has been used in the media to describe opponents and I will add the labour MP who used the word scum in reference to the Tories, the political classes need to be a lot more restrained in the language they use. “Stop the Boats” sounds very much like the “Build the wall” slogan used in America and the divide and rule tactics used in politics is not healthy for a democracy.

I do agree there’s an issue but having a policy that basically rejects anyone who’s risked their lives in desperation regardless of the validity of the claim cannot be the solution. Also, returning them to a third country such as Rwanda also makes no sense to me. If they can’t be returned to their country of origin on genuine safety grounds then surely they have a reasonable claim to asylum.

This deterrent approach is unlikely to stop the smugglers trying to get people in and it’ll likely mean those arriving become illegal immigrants rather than making an application to stay.

I also think there are much bigger issues to resolve in the country right now.
Sadly at the minute, polititians know that a strong focus on immigration is a vote winner, regardless of inflation, fuel and food poverty, and chronically underfunded public services.
 
The Tory MP on QT kept saying, breaking in to Britain, then went on to claim people like lineker should use less inflammatory language :rolleyes:
 
  • Angry
Reactions: RVN
The policy they’ve put forward even had written on the front saying it is unlikely that it will be deemed legal.

For this policy to be written into law we will need to break a number of treaties and cause further damage to our worldwide reputation at a time where it’s already in decline.

This current government just needs to go all they’re trying to do now is divide us in the hope that they can trigger a massive argument to lose labour votes. Immigration is a very tricky topic for labour and the Tories know it so I suspect they’ll look to fight another election on it now that they can’t just hammer Economy and Brexit.

Labour would serve well to take a clear stance and be open about what their policy will be to control immigration. The issue for them is the media which now is mostly right wing will hammer whatever they put forward even if it’s a good idea.
 
The Tory MP on QT kept saying, breaking in to Britain, then went on to claim people like lineker should use less inflammatory language :rolleyes:
Breaking into Britain, regardless of the reason (and there are different reasons) is effectively what is happening. They are uninvited aliens, so what else do you call it?
 
If you think like that fair enough, but to use inflammatory language and in the next breath call people out for inflammatory language is stupid.
Clearly it's Tory policy to use this language as they are all doing it

But to answer your question, a woman on the panel said the agreements the UK signed, I think in 48 and 51, says refugees have the right to get to any country by any means to seek asylum. So I they are not illegal, or breaking in, or swarming or coming by millions or by billions. They are legally allowed, according to international law and treaty's signed, to get to the UK or wherever however they like.

Now I don't know, I've not read the treaty's, but she said that, and nobody on the panel said that wasn't the case
 
@RVN @jsp why do both of you say there are more important things to be dealt with presently? Did you not read what I wrote in my previous post? "there are bodies floating in the sea's".
The boats from Europe to Britain do indeed need to be stopped. Geography dictates they will land in Europe and when they do they need to be processed and assessed for asylum fairly and squarely. Britain needs to be open to accepting a fair share of those granted asylum and probably share cost of such processing etc..
The Rwanda solution in is current state is disgraceful, however it could be feasible as an optional proposal to those who's asylum application is refused. Should such people be fearing persecution in their homeland why would they refuse free passage to a country in which they can live safely?
We cannot just hold the door open to all and sundry can we?
As much as I want this government out! I will not use matters as important as this to attack them.
What is it you want? as you appear to just be attacking any proposed action on illegal immigration, not specific elements of the policy. More important things to be dealing with indeed!!
 
Breaking into Britain, regardless of the reason (and there are different reasons) is effectively what is happening. They are uninvited aliens, so what else do you call it?

Or they are desperate people looking to flee dangerous conditions in pursuit of a better life.
 
Their proposal means all processing stops. So the situation will get worse because they can't "send them back" because they have agreements. They'll be loads if immigrants not getting processed, so they can't work to contribute to the economy
They are hoping people will just stop trying, that's what the minister said
Even Ken Clarke said it won't work
 
If you think like that fair enough, but to use inflammatory language and in the next breath call people out for inflammatory language is stupid.
Clearly it's Tory policy to use this language as they are all doing it

But to answer your question, a woman on the panel said the agreements the UK signed, I think in 48 and 51, says refugees have the right to get to any country by any means to seek asylum. So I they are not illegal, or breaking in, or swarming or coming by millions or by billions. They are legally allowed, according to international law and treaty's signed, to get to the UK or wherever however they like.

Now I don't know, I've not read the treaty's, but she said that, and nobody on the panel said that wasn't the case
This may very well be true and I suspect it will be, why wouldn't it be. That doesn't mean we should create a wave machine in the ocean to help them and it doesn't mean they have auto entitlement to stay once they do reach these shores.
Many of these people shall have no entitlement to asylum. For me the reason the boats have to be stopped is as previously stated. "there are bodies floating in the sea's". And people profiteering from that into the bargain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
or Log in using
Don't have an account? Register now
Back
Top