Lineker
- Thread starter kendalfox
- Start date
Rodneyfernsfeet
We must be in heaven man
Wonder if he comes on here
Exactly this.
Probably best for the Tory govt not to use the same tactics & inflammatory language as was seen in 1930s Germany, for any comparisons to be made. Obviously strikes a nerve.
European and British history is not your strong point is it?
If this isn’t a strong point for you, I’m sure you’ll figure things out.
Lineker, the ludicrously partisan Match of the Day presenter, has been given an easy ride for too long by his cowardly BBC bosses. He has shamelessly spewed his Left-wing, anti-Brexit bile for years, making no secret of his dislike for Tories and their values, in flagrant disregard of the corporation’s impartiality requirements. He has now gone full reductio ad Hitlerum on the Government’s plan to tackle the small boats crisis, claiming that it was not merely “beyond awful” and “an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people” but used “language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s”.
As the great Leo Strauss was the first to argue in his Natural Right and History, referring to the Nazis in this way is a cheap ad hominem argument, an anti-rational attempt to shut down discussion, a debating scam that logicians call the associative fallacy. It is also staggeringly ignorant, a cheapening of the horrors of the 1930s and a grievous, almost Orwellian, misrepresentation of what the Tories are trying to achieve.
Other Leftist demagogues soon joined in, claiming that a government whose relevant ministers are Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary (whose parents migrated from Kenya and Mauritius, and whose husband is Jewish), Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, whose Jewish children are the grandchildren of Holocaust survivors, and Dominic Raab, the Justice Secretary, whose Jewish father came from Czechoslovakia in 1938, would not have allowed the children of the Kindertransport to come to Britain.
This is a grotesque calumny, a scurrilous attack on ministers seeking to tackle an urgent, complex problem, and an all too typical attempt to veto any rational discussion of modern migration pathologies. There can be no legitimate comparison between the Kindertransport – a wonderful, but tragically insufficient programme under which 10,000 Jewish children were rescued from Nazi genocide – and the small boats arriving from France, a democracy where anybody who is eligible can claim asylum.
The vast majority of small boat arrivals today are young, male economic migrants; many are from Albania, a candidate for EU membership. They are brave and enterprising but they are attempting to break the rules to enter with the help of people-smugglers. There are regular drownings: contra Lineker, it is those who encourage this deadly obstacle race who are guilty of cruelty.
Rishi Sunak wants to shut this route into Britain completely. Economic migrants will have to apply in the normal way. There will be a new “safe and legal” route for those seeking sanctuary, with MPs voting every year on how many to let in. Britain has already introduced resettlement schemes for Ukrainians, Hong Kongers and Afghans: arrivals from those three countries alone over the past year have been far greater than all previous records for annual asylum acceptances. Public opinion is strongly supportive of persecuted people but it has no truck with those who falsely claim to be in fear for their lives.
Those who keep shouting down any reform of the migration rules as “fascist”, or who point to the numbers of refugees absorbed by other countries as proof that we should do more, must look at the overall context. Britain has been extremely open to immigration: 16.8 per cent of the population of England and Wales, or 10 million people, were born abroad. This is similar to Germany (17.3 per cent), higher than America (roughly 14 per cent), and much more than the EU average (10.6 per cent).
So why, given all of this, are many Left-wingers so apoplectic? The real reason is that for swathes of elite opinion any restrictions on migration are immoral and “far-Right”. They believe in entirely open doors but are too scared to make the argument explicitly, so they oppose all attempts at combating illegal immigration. They pretend to buy into the idea that many small boat arrivals are fleeing modern slavery and support activist lawyers. They cannot admit that the post-1945 institutions dealing with migration and refugees are no longer fit for purpose.
Braverman said this week that “there are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws”, triggering outrage by those who deliberately seek to misconstrue her. Her point is that the West’s system now only works because, in practice, many of those eligible to move do not do so, hardly a good basis for policy. In an era of cheapish flights, growing prosperity, demographic shifts, environmental challenges and smartphones, we require modernised rules, conventions, courts and treaties that accept that seismic population movements could become more frequent, that there are limits to how many people the West can absorb, but that are also humane and committed to saving and harbouring victims of tyranny and persecution.
I deeply respect principled advocates of open borders who believe in the oneness of humanity and refuse to compromise on individual liberty. The best modern case is that made by Bryan Caplan in Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration, a remarkably original non-fiction comic book. Caplan claims world GDP would double by boosting the productivity of hundreds of millions of economically under-utilised people as they move to rich nations, and do more for humanity as a whole than any other possible policy.
While a great read, Caplan’s plan for a Westernised, cosmopolitan utopia is unrealistic. Institutions would implode, with small countries, such as Israel, Cyprus or Switzerland, being the first to collapse. Our future lies in democratic nation-states with a strong shared identity, not incoherent technocratic empires. These depend on strict requirements for citizenship and integration and, yes, that means limits on immigration, choosing who we let in, and elites that do not constantly defy, fail or lie to voters on the issue.
Sunak’s plan is a good first step in rebuilding trust but – given the lack of capacity in detention centres and Rwanda – it will only work if it calls the people-traffickers’ bluff. It must also overcome the purveyors of lawfare: this must surely require withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. Will the Tory party have the courage to make the final break with the failed orthodoxy of the past, pioneering a new generous but controlled approach to migration, or will it allow itself to be bullied into submission by Twitter Leftists?
As the great Leo Strauss was the first to argue in his Natural Right and History, referring to the Nazis in this way is a cheap ad hominem argument, an anti-rational attempt to shut down discussion, a debating scam that logicians call the associative fallacy. It is also staggeringly ignorant, a cheapening of the horrors of the 1930s and a grievous, almost Orwellian, misrepresentation of what the Tories are trying to achieve.
Other Leftist demagogues soon joined in, claiming that a government whose relevant ministers are Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary (whose parents migrated from Kenya and Mauritius, and whose husband is Jewish), Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, whose Jewish children are the grandchildren of Holocaust survivors, and Dominic Raab, the Justice Secretary, whose Jewish father came from Czechoslovakia in 1938, would not have allowed the children of the Kindertransport to come to Britain.
This is a grotesque calumny, a scurrilous attack on ministers seeking to tackle an urgent, complex problem, and an all too typical attempt to veto any rational discussion of modern migration pathologies. There can be no legitimate comparison between the Kindertransport – a wonderful, but tragically insufficient programme under which 10,000 Jewish children were rescued from Nazi genocide – and the small boats arriving from France, a democracy where anybody who is eligible can claim asylum.
The vast majority of small boat arrivals today are young, male economic migrants; many are from Albania, a candidate for EU membership. They are brave and enterprising but they are attempting to break the rules to enter with the help of people-smugglers. There are regular drownings: contra Lineker, it is those who encourage this deadly obstacle race who are guilty of cruelty.
Rishi Sunak wants to shut this route into Britain completely. Economic migrants will have to apply in the normal way. There will be a new “safe and legal” route for those seeking sanctuary, with MPs voting every year on how many to let in. Britain has already introduced resettlement schemes for Ukrainians, Hong Kongers and Afghans: arrivals from those three countries alone over the past year have been far greater than all previous records for annual asylum acceptances. Public opinion is strongly supportive of persecuted people but it has no truck with those who falsely claim to be in fear for their lives.
Those who keep shouting down any reform of the migration rules as “fascist”, or who point to the numbers of refugees absorbed by other countries as proof that we should do more, must look at the overall context. Britain has been extremely open to immigration: 16.8 per cent of the population of England and Wales, or 10 million people, were born abroad. This is similar to Germany (17.3 per cent), higher than America (roughly 14 per cent), and much more than the EU average (10.6 per cent).
So why, given all of this, are many Left-wingers so apoplectic? The real reason is that for swathes of elite opinion any restrictions on migration are immoral and “far-Right”. They believe in entirely open doors but are too scared to make the argument explicitly, so they oppose all attempts at combating illegal immigration. They pretend to buy into the idea that many small boat arrivals are fleeing modern slavery and support activist lawyers. They cannot admit that the post-1945 institutions dealing with migration and refugees are no longer fit for purpose.
Braverman said this week that “there are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws”, triggering outrage by those who deliberately seek to misconstrue her. Her point is that the West’s system now only works because, in practice, many of those eligible to move do not do so, hardly a good basis for policy. In an era of cheapish flights, growing prosperity, demographic shifts, environmental challenges and smartphones, we require modernised rules, conventions, courts and treaties that accept that seismic population movements could become more frequent, that there are limits to how many people the West can absorb, but that are also humane and committed to saving and harbouring victims of tyranny and persecution.
I deeply respect principled advocates of open borders who believe in the oneness of humanity and refuse to compromise on individual liberty. The best modern case is that made by Bryan Caplan in Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration, a remarkably original non-fiction comic book. Caplan claims world GDP would double by boosting the productivity of hundreds of millions of economically under-utilised people as they move to rich nations, and do more for humanity as a whole than any other possible policy.
While a great read, Caplan’s plan for a Westernised, cosmopolitan utopia is unrealistic. Institutions would implode, with small countries, such as Israel, Cyprus or Switzerland, being the first to collapse. Our future lies in democratic nation-states with a strong shared identity, not incoherent technocratic empires. These depend on strict requirements for citizenship and integration and, yes, that means limits on immigration, choosing who we let in, and elites that do not constantly defy, fail or lie to voters on the issue.
Sunak’s plan is a good first step in rebuilding trust but – given the lack of capacity in detention centres and Rwanda – it will only work if it calls the people-traffickers’ bluff. It must also overcome the purveyors of lawfare: this must surely require withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. Will the Tory party have the courage to make the final break with the failed orthodoxy of the past, pioneering a new generous but controlled approach to migration, or will it allow itself to be bullied into submission by Twitter Leftists?
The Telegraph
Y
youlittlestripper
Guest
thread hijacked, shame
Typical Telegraph tosh.
- So it's OK for Tory ministers to have 2nd jobs as GB News presenters, & for them to parrot their crap there?
- If you don't want comparisons to 1930s Germany, don't use the language & imagery they used - quite simple
- Braverman lying that 100m are on their way here - that's scaremongering without any factual basis
- While there is every sympathy with the plight of the Ukrainians, how come the 'first country' rule (e.g. Poland) that is parroted by so many Tory politicians was not applied to them?
- The Tories have eroded the right to do so many things in this country, & now we're advocating withdrawing from the ECHR. To my knowledge, only Russia & Belarus have done this. Great company, eh?
So many have fallen hook, line & sinker for this idea, but there's no detail or thought behind it - only some strange misguided belligerent insistence from the Tories that they are right.
Not to mention yet another excuse to deflect attention away from the shitshow they're presiding over.
"Look at the little boats & ignore the superyachts"
Last edited:
How do you know what the Telegraph print? - it's behind a paywall most of the time.
- So it's OK for Tory ministers to have 2nd jobs as GB News presenters, & for them to parrot their crap there?
Yes it is OK. If you don't like it don't watch it. I don't. Equally, I do not watch the BBC and the procession of left wingers than they roll our day in day out
- If you don't want comparisons to 1930s Germany, don't use the language & imagery they used - quite simple
What language and imagery did they used in Germany that is being copied now please? As an aside I am happy for left wingers to play the 'Far Right' or 'Nazi' card rather than debate the issues.
- Don't lie that 100m are on their way here - that's scaremongering without any factual basis
Out of context quote
- While there is every sympathy with the plight of the Ukrainians, how come the 'first country' rule (e.g. Poland) that is parroted by so many Tory politicians not applied to them?
Because the circumstances are wholly different. There is a war in the Ukraine. There is not a war in Albania (for example), or India, or Pakistan.
TartanFox
Roofer
I have dealings with asylum seekers, not one of them is Albanian. Not one.
They are from Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan, nearly 200 people. All have come across the channel on a small boat.
So my experience of the 'asylum seekers' doesn't match that which is portrayed by elements of our media. That is not to say that there are not Albanians abusing the system (a system the government has been in control of for 12-13 years, BTW and have failed miserabley to manage) and they should be dealt with and returned to Albania PDQ.
The latest PR Exercise wouldn't pass muster as an A-Level project, there are so many holes in it, a Tory MP could wear it as fishnets at the weekend with an orange stuck in his gob. Instead of all this bluster, surely the question is why don't THEY just get on and fix the problems they've created and within the powers they already possess and stop defelecting it on to Gary Lineker?
They are from Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan, nearly 200 people. All have come across the channel on a small boat.
So my experience of the 'asylum seekers' doesn't match that which is portrayed by elements of our media. That is not to say that there are not Albanians abusing the system (a system the government has been in control of for 12-13 years, BTW and have failed miserabley to manage) and they should be dealt with and returned to Albania PDQ.
The latest PR Exercise wouldn't pass muster as an A-Level project, there are so many holes in it, a Tory MP could wear it as fishnets at the weekend with an orange stuck in his gob. Instead of all this bluster, surely the question is why don't THEY just get on and fix the problems they've created and within the powers they already possess and stop defelecting it on to Gary Lineker?
- On that basis, you don't have to listen to Lineker either - you can reject his ramblings that he's an ex-footballer, much like I reject the ramblings of politicians in charge of these things that give the impression they know better, but woefully lacking in detail. He's also employed by places other than the BBC...evidently there's no issue with the BBC chairman helping facilitate a loan to Billy Bunter, if we want to talk about impartiality
- I'll give you that 'Stop The Boats' lectern - straight out of something from the 1930s. Swarms, Invaders, Flooding into the country etc. I'm sure you're capable of finding others.
- The home secretary has repeatedly claimed that without reform, “[there are] 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws”.
She told ITV’s Good Morning Britain the figure was “an estimate by the UN”, adding: “Many of them are heading to the United Kingdom.”
What has she based the last sentence on?
- Well done for mentioning all of the countries that don't have a conflict. So why the need for Braverman to lump in all the countries together? It's already been highlighted that the numbers actually processed via any means the Tories are boasting about (e.g. Afghanistan), are miniscule at best. However as mentioned, why not have a thought-through process in place that actually works & costs less than the money we're spaffing on the Rwanda scheme?
Brauny
The optimistic pessimist
Lineker, the king of the virtue signallers.
If he was that concerned about the ' people with no voice' then would he like to comment on the poor people of Kegworth who stand to have 250 asylum seekers housed on their doorsteps at Yew Lodge.
When you live in SW19 you don't have to worry about such things do you ?
If he was that concerned about the ' people with no voice' then would he like to comment on the poor people of Kegworth who stand to have 250 asylum seekers housed on their doorsteps at Yew Lodge.
When you live in SW19 you don't have to worry about such things do you ?
Wasn't aware a person needed to fit a specific criteria in order to speak up on behalf of asylum seekers.
Perhaps if the govt had a cheaper, more agreeable process in place to process applications, then the need to house them in hotels wouldn't be necessary?
The numbers have gone up because of this + The cost of housing them increases = Point the finger at the asylum seekers (& not at the inadequate skills of those in charge of these things)
This deflecting lark is so easy.
An Indian (well known war zone) student for 20 daysYou're right, Lineker doesn't have them on his doorstep.
He has them inside his house
A man from Turkey (well known war zone) who ran away from army service and wants to be a 'Rocket Scientist (lol)
Lineker is currently in Court seeking to avoid a tax bill of c. £5 million
Do you work with them voluntarily or is it a job?
TartanFox
Roofer
That isn't Lineker's fault there are 250 people seeking asylum in Kegworth, it's the direct result of the government failing to have a grip on the situation. It is their fault and their fault alone. As a result the people of Kegworth now have a situation that none of them asked for.
I don't think anyone wants to be in this situation, but like Lineker I find the grandstanding on a policy that won't work and the language being used entitrely wrong and unhelpful.
TartanFox
Roofer
Work. Thrust upon us, no option.
The problem is Tartan we see pictures of these people arriving on our beaches, many in nice trainers and designer coats. They don't look desperate or destitute. A very high percentage of them are young men. The have found sufficient funds to cross Europe and 2 sea crossings so it's hard to see how they are entitled to asylum. If they are are migrants they need to go through the proper channels and apply in the country they're in. If people want to leave this country for Australia for instance they have to go through the proper channels not simply turn up and try to force the issue.
Even the people who are genuinely in fear of persecution should claim asylum in the first safe country thy come to. They can then apply for permission to come here in the proper way, those who try to bypass the system are making it worse for the genuine cases.
Even the people who are genuinely in fear of persecution should claim asylum in the first safe country thy come to. They can then apply for permission to come here in the proper way, those who try to bypass the system are making it worse for the genuine cases.
Brauny
The optimistic pessimist
I stand by every word I said.
Brauny
The optimistic pessimist
It's not as yet been given a chance to work and if the lefties, wokies, ECHR, and any other anti Tory bunch get a chance to stop it we will never know
Club_B00k_Crutchless
Registered
You do know they have jobs and phones in other countries?
Anti Tory? It's like activist and lefty lawyer accusation, they're just making sure the Govt follow the rule of law, like they expect us to. I know this current mob have normalised lying and law breaking, but sometimes people will try to make sure they follow the law.
TartanFox
Roofer
What's Chewbacca got to do with this?
It is the Tories that have caused this problem. In 2018 less than 800 made the crossing, 1900 in 2019 then we left the EU and now last year it was in excess of 45k. Who has been the government in that time, what strategic decision did that governemnt make? Not Lineker, not 'lefties' (whatever and whoever the fuck they are), not even the ECHR.
I feel you are directing your frustration at the wrong people and putting your faith in the architects of this mess to solve it.