Gary Lineker's tweet

maddyone

Just to say, I wasn’t rude to anyone including growstuff. She just didn’t like my opinion. Holding an opinion is not rude, it’s allowed.

And my opinion is that calling somebody else's post "ridiculous" is rude. And then asking for an apology for not being allowed to be rude to somebody is beyond ridiculous.

At no point did I refer to any of your posts as ridiculous growstuff.
I actually said ‘unbelievable.’
Because I found it to be so.

Trying to get back on track 😄

How about the following tweet?

“If in doubt take a look at Mail and Express front pages in recent days. ‘Support the government or you’re a traitor. No dissent allowed. Just swallow the government propaganda.’ Then read a few books about Der Stürmer and Völkischer Beobachter. History has lessons”

I think that tweet has merit.

And of course the Tories love diversionary tactics.

“My fuel bill is 300% more than a year ago. I’m paying 30% more for diesel. I’m worried I won’t see a doctor if I need one. My food shopping is 20% higher. My kids can’t afford accommodation. My country is an international joke stumbling into war. But

Let’s focus on small boats”

Professor Tanya Bueltmann a German professor and historian of migration.

“The language we have heard from this Govt, no matter how many times they claim otherwise, is not dissimilar in some ways to that used in 1930s Germany. So while we need to be mindful of the specific contexts of 1930s Germany and should not draw direct parallels with today, …
… when common characteristics, eg in the use of a not dissimilar language, are there, we can—and should—say so. If some don’t like that, the answer is that those who push such rhetoric need to stop, not to threaten those who call out the vile dehumanisation of vulnerable people

The crimes my country of birth committed in the past were attrocious crimes against humanity. But let me also remind everyone of this: those crimes did not start with concentration camps—that is where they ended. So if we want ‘never again’ to have actual meaning …
… we cannot start at that horrific end point. The roots of what happened lay earlier and they included the othering and dehumanisation of vulnerable and minority groups, using a language we sometimes hear What is history for if not to look back and use the knowledge we have to comment on current events. Doing that does not equal saying the UK is Nazi Germany.
GaryLineker
didn’t say that and I didn’t say it here either. It is about similarities in …
… the populism that fuels hate. The problem here is not pointing that out: the problem lies with those who keep drawing on that populism to dehumanise others just so they can distract from their policy failures and pander to a fringe of xenophobes.

PS: I’m muting this now because some of the usuals have seen the thread. For me the bottom line will always be this: as a German I cannot just say something once things have escalated to even more extreme forms of hate etc. We cannot treat fellow human beings in these ways

This is something that does not just apply to refugees and immigrants. Denying some of our communities their very existence based on who they are, for instance, is another example where populism is escalating hate in ways that are entirely unacceptable.
Plus, as a migration historian I also know that all forms of movement are the foundation of our very human existence. Moreover, the climate emergency will make sure numbers of displaced people will increase. For that reason too, populism is never the right solution”

Gary needs to go from the job he does so well if he wants to express his opinions" I am not interested in what he has to say about anything but football, the BBC has to be impartial no doubt Gary has enough money, but he could get more if he left BBC and worked for some other company that does not need that impartiality. Why anyone would listen to him I don't know but there's a lot of people think if you're famous for anything their views are relevant on any subject. Ridiculous.

What does she mean in terms of threaten the person who gave the message. Does she mean that people voiced a view of GL or does she mean the 'threats' around BBC impartiality. If it's people voicing their views on Lineker or even a different view on the government, that is the free speech that everyone is apparently saying is important. If its threats about BBC impartiality, in other words calls to sack him, I fully agree that that is a threat and should never be used. But it applies to people expressing their support of the policy too. And to expressing views that people may find very difficult.
I am half German, I am not sure it give my opinion any more validity, I think that's an interesting road to go down too.

Is it Lineker’s message you disagree with?

I didn’t post all Bueltmann’s post, but she did say that as a German, she recognises 1930s rhetoric, because she was taught about it all of her life and it is instilled in her very being.

I do think that she along with all Germans have a very particular history on which they can draw and learn lessons from.

“Threaten the person who gave the message”

= don’t shoot the messenger 🙂

No not in the slightest. But it raises complex issues of free speech that we havent as a society got to grips with. I would say that one of the things that impacts minorities most, if you want to learn from history, is when people try to control speech, minorities are the first to suffer, but free speech has to include Linekers message and also speech that we might be deeply uncomfortable with.

Yes, absolutely - free speech. It is ironic though that those who have been vociferous in their complaints about the lack of free speech are the very ones now attacking Lineker’s right to exercise his freedom.

Just out with the dog now - will pick this up later.

Rosie51

Casdon

Rosie51

So say Russia (just an example) offers me £1million (I thought it was a great deal more for Qatar, Joe Lycett quoted £10million) to commentate on some sports thingy. I happily accept this money but deride my hosts for a few minutes during a broadcast by saying they're not the nicest people. Later I decide to lambast some homegrown people for transgressions I decide are akin to those perpetuated in history, but very similar to the values of the hosts who paid me so well. Wow aren't I the golden one, the one with impeccable morals? Happy to accept riches from the most corrupt while believing my hands are clean. Deluded or what?

Or to put it another way- a freelance sports commentator makes a decision to work for payment for the biggest sporting event of the year which is taking place in a country which has a terrible human rights record, which his own country are sending their national team to participate in, said venue was chosen by FIFA and had nothing to do with him.
Same freelance sports commentator, who also has a contract with the BBC for some of his work then has the temerity to criticise the government of his own country for breaking the ECHR and compares their stance to the nazis.

Once the emotive language is removed, it’s clear that he has used his freedom of speech appropriately. His actions regarding accepting payment for working in Qatar have nothing at all to do with his right to speak out about atrocities in his own country.

So he picks and chooses his morality position depending on whether he wants to be paid the big bucks? I love football, watch as much as I'm able (not just the team I support) but made the decision my moral objection to the venue for the World Cup meant I chose not to watch one second of the coverage. The fact my national team were so devoid of conscience as to still go didn't influence me to abandon my principles. Happy to 'take the knee' to display their anti-discrimination principles in England, but equally happy to abandon those principles when it was convenient. Garry Lineker was just one of the figure heads of that self-absorbed, over-paid cohort. "No snowflake in an avalanche ever felt responsible" or "all that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing" take your pick, both apply. You either have principles or you don't. If money comes into the equation you clearly don't!

Resorting to personal insult about my morality doesn’t prove your point Rosie51, it just makes you look as though you are trying to win cheap points because I was questioning the emotive language of your initial post. Nor does trying to take the moral high ground yourself about the World Cup.

You’ve actually missed the point. Lineker’s right to freedom of speech is not cancelled out by his actions in Qatar, that’s not how it works in a free society.

Oh well if that what she means she really doesnt understand free speech, people are free to respond to GL in any way they like, sorry if that isnt the speech people want to hear. And of course she is free to say dont shoot the messenger it becomes very circular. But the hints about BBC impartiality are in my view a threat, and I loathe peoples jobs being threatened for speech.

No I think her point is that they are attacking Lineker in person - saying he should be given the sack etc, not the message.

I think her argument stands - message not messenger.

I think everyone including GL has the right to say what they think about this Government or

Likening a Government to a 1930’s regime which caused millions of death and untold harm is his tweet helpful or responsible?

The tweet that was quoted was in response to someone (just a regular person - not famous) who had replied to Lineker's original tweet. It wasn't the tweet he'd posted originally.

I think he's right of course but I don't remember the original post being quite so outspoken.

I've been following him on twitter since I was appalled when he went to Quatar (and said so).

I have no interest in him and crisp promotion Keeleklogger - or in football as it happens.

I have been wondering whilst cooking GS’s breakfast, if we wound back a few years before the internet would GL be interested in politics enough to hire a village hall and give a speech to those who turned up regarding his political views?

It is very easy to press send on one’s views, no fuss, just a few seconds out of someone’s day…

Whitewavemark2

No I think her point is that they are attacking Lineker in person - saying he should be given the sack etc, not the message.

I think her argument stands - message not messenger.

That's what I was saying at 1 o'clock this morning!

There's no point in trying to discuss the actual 'message' on this thread, is there? You're all having a great time virtue signalling and slagging off the messenger.

Sorry Maizie weren't we using the words you wanted to hear. People need to be able to cope with discussing a terrible policy, discussing the issues that BBC impartiality raises, discussing what constitutes 'being like 1930s Germany', what impact Twitter activism has etc etc. Often threads raise numerous complex issues.

More thinking

GL is followed by thousands if not millions of football followers who may or may not be politically savvy

He could be influencing their votes come election day, not sure that following a football pundits views is how I wish U.K. elections to be won/lost.

GrannyGravy13

More thinking

GL is followed by thousands if not millions of football followers who may or may not be politically savvy

He could be influencing their votes come election day, not sure that following a football pundits views is how I wish U.K. elections to be won/lost.

I'd rather they followed a football pundit than Suella Braverman and the rest of the fascist crew.

Casdon

Rosie51

Casdon

Rosie51

So say Russia (just an example) offers me £1million (I thought it was a great deal more for Qatar, Joe Lycett quoted £10million) to commentate on some sports thingy. I happily accept this money but deride my hosts for a few minutes during a broadcast by saying they're not the nicest people. Later I decide to lambast some homegrown people for transgressions I decide are akin to those perpetuated in history, but very similar to the values of the hosts who paid me so well. Wow aren't I the golden one, the one with impeccable morals? Happy to accept riches from the most corrupt while believing my hands are clean. Deluded or what?

Or to put it another way- a freelance sports commentator makes a decision to work for payment for the biggest sporting event of the year which is taking place in a country which has a terrible human rights record, which his own country are sending their national team to participate in, said venue was chosen by FIFA and had nothing to do with him.
Same freelance sports commentator, who also has a contract with the BBC for some of his work then has the temerity to criticise the government of his own country for breaking the ECHR and compares their stance to the nazis.

Once the emotive language is removed, it’s clear that he has used his freedom of speech appropriately. His actions regarding accepting payment for working in Qatar have nothing at all to do with his right to speak out about atrocities in his own country.

So he picks and chooses his morality position depending on whether he wants to be paid the big bucks? I love football, watch as much as I'm able (not just the team I support) but made the decision my moral objection to the venue for the World Cup meant I chose not to watch one second of the coverage. The fact my national team were so devoid of conscience as to still go didn't influence me to abandon my principles. Happy to 'take the knee' to display their anti-discrimination principles in England, but equally happy to abandon those principles when it was convenient. Garry Lineker was just one of the figure heads of that self-absorbed, over-paid cohort. "No snowflake in an avalanche ever felt responsible" or "all that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing" take your pick, both apply. You either have principles or you don't. If money comes into the equation you clearly don't!

Resorting to personal insult about my morality doesn’t prove your point Rosie51, it just makes you look as though you are trying to win cheap points because I was questioning the emotive language of your initial post. Nor does trying to take the moral high ground yourself about the World Cup.

You’ve actually missed the point. Lineker’s right to freedom of speech is not cancelled out by his actions in Qatar, that’s not how it works in a free society.

Oh goodness I wasn't making points about your morality at all Casdon I'm sorry you've misread it that way. I question Garry Lineker's commitment to human rights when it involves his huge pay, and consider him a hypocrite. I don't question his freedom of speech to say whatever he likes within the law, nor would I call for his sacking. I could absolutely agree with something GL said, but still consider him a hypocrite if his actions weren't consistent with the message.

Galaxy

Sorry Maizie weren't we using the words you wanted to hear. People need to be able to cope with discussing a terrible policy, discussing the issues that BBC impartiality raises, discussing what constitutes 'being like 1930s Germany', what impact Twitter activism has etc etc. Often threads raise numerous complex issues.

Fair enough.
If you're not interested in the descent of the UK into fascism I can't force you.

It's just unfortunate that this turned into a slag off GL so very fast.