Gary Lineker's tweet

Kandinsky

It’s a shame Gary Lineker & his mates didn’t make the same protest over human rights in Qutar.
They were happy to take the money from the BBC to sit & comment on the World Cup in a country that treats women, homosexuals, & workers appallingly.

Double standards indeed.

This was covered earlier on in this thread, in detail.

It’s a shame Gary Lineker & his mates didn’t make the same protest over human rights in Qutar.
They were happy to take the money from the BBC to sit & comment on the World Cup in a country that treats women, homosexuals, & workers appallingly.

Double standards indeed.

Maybe this is the start of 'the people' having their say about what we want to tolerate by way of curtailment as well as by way of freedom.

Galaxy

And who decides the law that defines hate speech. You currently have a Tory government, are you comfortable with them creating new definitions for hate speech. Also the actual process of being dragged through the courts is the punishment, whether found innocent or not, or trial by Twitter for speech. It's very hard but you have to stick up for speech you hate. Minorities are the first to suffer when speech is curtailed. We need to stop 'burning people at the stake' for their speech.

Perhaps, in the end, Galaxy, it's 'the people' who decide (and I don't mean 'the people' as invoked by the government in support of their policies). Mosely's Blackshirts' were given short shrift by them in the 1930s.

And who decides the law that defines hate speech. You currently have a Tory government, are you comfortable with them creating new definitions for hate speech. Also the actual process of being dragged through the courts is the punishment, whether found innocent or not, or trial by Twitter for speech. It's very hard but you have to stick up for speech you hate. Minorities are the first to suffer when speech is curtailed. We need to stop 'burning people at the stake' for their speech.

You may have inferred that he meant the Nazis, but that doesn’t mean that he implied it.

As has repeatedly been said (and ignored, as many only pick up on things that feed into their own world view), Nazism started with ’othering’ opponents of the regime. Calling people ‘crafty little swine’ and getting away with it, picking on certain groups and making it ok to treat them as less than human, gradually cranking up the polemic until it was too late to turn back.

That is what Lineker is saying - that the rhetoric of Braverman ^et a^l has parallels with that. He is not implying that she is a Nazi - that inference is in the minds of those leaping to her defence.

As for whether he should be ‘allowed’ to express an opinion - doesn’t that come down to whether we are in a free society or not? Expressing a detrimental opinion about you employer is likely to result in being sacked. Expressing a political opinion and then pretending to be neutral when presenting a political programme is likely to reduce your credibility and that of the programme itself, but being a sports presenter and expressing an opinion as a private citizen is his right, and I find it worrying that the BBC feels that they have the right to ‘allow’ or disallow’ freelance employees that right.

Whitewavemark2

Freya5

I'm sure you, as most other reasonable people, have read between the lines as to what Lineker was referring to, crafty little swine, must have had lawyer input before he yet again opened his mouth. What was going on in Germany in the 30s was beyond horror, to infer a Democratically elected Gov, and therefore the electorate, be compared to the National Socialist party, eg Nazis, is despicable.

He didn’t

And actually, the National Socialist party was democratically elected. It subsequently passed a law to give itself supreme and unchallengeable power.

There have been similar attempts by our current government, the Bill to abolish all our laws based on EU regulations currently going through Parliament is one. It gives unlimited power to government ministers with no parliamentary scrutiny at all. If the tories at the same time succeed in preventing ant judicial review of their actions we will be right in line with 1930s Germany.

As it is, there is a lot of very similar language coming from them, as Lineker correctly pointed out.

Galaxy

Ricky Gervais does a joke about concentration camps, lawful or not? Who gets to decide.

Isn't it the judge who decides?

Hate speech is a crime, is it not? As evidenced in the extract from the RRA that Fp posted. You can be prosecuted for it.

A member of the not yet politicised judiciary decides. Thatbis their job. To interpret the law.

Freya5

I'm sure you, as most other reasonable people, have read between the lines as to what Lineker was referring to, crafty little swine, must have had lawyer input before he yet again opened his mouth. What was going on in Germany in the 30s was beyond horror, to infer a Democratically elected Gov, and therefore the electorate, be compared to the National Socialist party, eg Nazis, is despicable.

He didn’t

I'm sure you, as most other reasonable people, have read between the lines as to what Lineker was referring to, crafty little swine, must have had lawyer input before he yet again opened his mouth. What was going on in Germany in the 30s was beyond horror, to infer a Democratically elected Gov, and therefore the electorate, be compared to the National Socialist party, eg Nazis, is despicable.

Ricky Gervais does a joke about concentration camps, lawful or not? Who gets to decide.

And who interprets that FP, the very last people you want to decide, the Tories are currently drafting laws to go before parliament, so are you handing that control of speech to them?

When Clarkson said that 'strikers should be shot in front of their children' - was that lawful or not?

Galaxy

And there we have it. The speech I dont like shouldnt be allowed on the air.
Well dont be surprised then when speech you do like is banned.

Depends surely if some of the 'speech' breaks the Law or not.

Race Relations Act 1965

The Race Relations Act 1965 was the first piece of legislation in the UK to address the prohibition of racial discrimination and followed previously unsuccessful bills. The Act banned racial discrimination in public places and made the promotion of hatred on the grounds of ‘colour, race, or ethnic or national origins' an offence

A lot of the posters, promotional videos (like the awful one about the mother with a cold going to A&E) totally broke the above Law, and were not taken to task as they should have been.

And there we have it. The speech I dont like shouldnt be allowed on the air.
Well dont be surprised then when speech you do like is banned.

Double standards

biglouis

I dont share his views on immigration. In fact I belong to an anti immigration party.

If he had expressed these views while in his role as a commentator if would have been completely inappropriate. However he has a right to voice his opinions outside the role.

I am increasingly dismayed at the censorship being imposed by the politically correct/lefty brigade.

What happeed to the good old British tradiion of "I dont agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Good post. But only up to a point. There are Laws about racism for instance. So any anti-immigration party has to abide by those. Some of the pro Brexit campaign was so appalling in that respect, and should have never been allowed on air or in the tabloids.

If you regularly read a paper that clearly supports racism and anti-foreigner views, because you believe in what they say, you become part of it- with your subscription and support.

It's a question that's been answered. This has been happening in the BBc for some time. Hes not the first.

Great question Greta. And I am quite sure the answer is no- as shown with so many examples from before.

Would GL have been suspended if he had praised the language used in the immigration speeches by the government?

This You Gov poll which came out last night is interesting (and promising)

yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/03/11/britons-say-bbc-was-wrong-suspend-gary-lineker

Vegansrock did Braverman ‘lean on’ the BBC, perhaps? It’s a possibility.
This is going to run and run.

The chap who works with the BBC in regards to their social media policy (Will Guyatt, a freelance tech expert) was talking about this on LBC late last night.
He was saying that he is constantly updating the policies as it’s a bit of a messy area

What I want to know is - why is Gary Lineker picked on when the likes of Alan Sugar can make political statements and nothing is said? Neither are news broadcasters so good on them , and Deborah Meaden with her tweets. What about Fiona Bruce? She should definitely go.

It’s reported that the Beeb are ‘begging’ Gary to return.
I can’t see him going back to BT Sport, my money is on Sky.

Casdon I’ve only just seen your Boris / TV detector van line.
My favourite gag of the day 😆 👏 👏