Discussion
crankedup5 said:
Sadly you are concentrating on critiquing the poster and not the issue. This approach may offer you some form of satisfaction unfortunately doesn’t address the issues. Try answering the points I have previously raised.
When the poster (you, btw, so it's a little odd to refer to yourself in the 3rd-person) does nothing but mount defences of a clearly inept government then they become one and the same.The issue is that the government who has been in power for 13 years has failed to 'take back control' and 'close the borders' whilst at the same time turning the HO into a complete basket-case.
As HM-2 points out - do let us know how said government is doing on the manifesto pledges you're so keen to trumpet.
andymadmak said:
Eric Mc said:
andymadmak said:
Let's start with the simple bit: Anyone making public references to 1930s Germany when talking about UK Government policy is being inflammatory.
Actually, it's spot-on. What was being said and put about in (say) 1930-33 in Germany regarding certain groups of people was not that dissimilar to what is being said today here in the UK about certain groups of people. In fact, you should read what people were saying in the UK in the 1930s about certain groups of people.It always starts small.
andymadmak said:
I think Lineker is a good football pundit. A million quid + worth of football pundit though? Not for me, but if that is what the market rate is then fair enough.
Let's start with the simple bit: Anyone making public references to 1930s Germany when talking about UK Government policy is being inflammatory. It's not really acceptable, nor is it particularly accurate imho - That assessment applies to Lineker, regardless of his job as a football pundit. I'd still disagree with his position on this subject if he were just a bloke down the pub
Faux-victimhood. Let's start with the simple bit: Anyone making public references to 1930s Germany when talking about UK Government policy is being inflammatory. It's not really acceptable, nor is it particularly accurate imho - That assessment applies to Lineker, regardless of his job as a football pundit. I'd still disagree with his position on this subject if he were just a bloke down the pub
It's like when a person says something racist, gets called out on it, and then gets offended that they're being called a racist and pretend like you've just accused them of donning a white hood to lead a lynch mob.
One can debate the accuracy of Linekars remarks; just as you would if he'd said them in your local. Suggesting that they're unacceptable or inflammatory is nonsense.
andymadmak said:
The question is should he be allowed to display his political leanings so overtly as a BBC presenter? After all Lineker is just a football pundit, he is not the guy in charge of editing or presenting the Today program or the 6 o'clock news.
Nevertheless incidents like this resonate with those who claim that BBC employees and contractors have an inherent anti Government and/or political bias, and whilst the BBC is struggling over questions of bias and partiality in its ranks it's clear that the management are not going to be happy when their highest paid presenter jumps feet first into the political fray like this.
Whether one accepts the claims of bias to not, it IS clear that the BBC has 'positions' on key subjects and stories are presented in the context of those positions. Of course one does not see that context if one agrees with the position taken, but to others that context in itself represents inherent bias.
So is eliminating bias at the BBC and amongst its presenters/editors/employees even possible?
I'd say probably not. People waffle on about being professional and leaving ones beliefs at the front door, but the number of people who can genuinely do that is quite small. The BBC employs more than 20,000 people so it's unlikely that everyone is THAT professional. If we accept that, then is it not more dangerous/dishonest for the BBC to claim that the organisation is unbiased and in turn to seek to command the status and trust that genuine impartiality brings?
The reality is that the BBC has positions, it's employees and contractors have positions, so is it not better that we, the viewers, understand those positions and and filter the BBC output accordingly?
In fact, it might be helpful if all BBC on screen and editorial staff were more open and more vocal about their political affiliations and beliefs. At least that way we might avoid the desperate arguments about the BBC supposedly being 'balanced' when it simply isn't and hasn't really ever been.
People can then listen to any report/comment/opinion being expressed by BBC staff (and contractors) on the basis of a better understanding of the starting position of whoever is expressing that report/comment/opinion. It's a bit like selecting your daily newspaper. You purchase the Guardian knowing it will have a particular take on a story, whilst you might purchase the Telegraph for a somewhat different view of that same story. One knows what one is buying in that sense, and we pay for the BBC service, so what's the problem? What we have now at the BBC is supposedly authoritative journalism predicated an assumption that it's supposed to be neither Guardian nor Telegraph, when the truth is rather different.
There is also an awful assumption that someones political leanings will always affect their work. There are lots of examples of BBC presenters and journalists over the years who would ask tough questions of anyone they were interviewing, regardless of an personal political leanings. Nevertheless incidents like this resonate with those who claim that BBC employees and contractors have an inherent anti Government and/or political bias, and whilst the BBC is struggling over questions of bias and partiality in its ranks it's clear that the management are not going to be happy when their highest paid presenter jumps feet first into the political fray like this.
Whether one accepts the claims of bias to not, it IS clear that the BBC has 'positions' on key subjects and stories are presented in the context of those positions. Of course one does not see that context if one agrees with the position taken, but to others that context in itself represents inherent bias.
So is eliminating bias at the BBC and amongst its presenters/editors/employees even possible?
I'd say probably not. People waffle on about being professional and leaving ones beliefs at the front door, but the number of people who can genuinely do that is quite small. The BBC employs more than 20,000 people so it's unlikely that everyone is THAT professional. If we accept that, then is it not more dangerous/dishonest for the BBC to claim that the organisation is unbiased and in turn to seek to command the status and trust that genuine impartiality brings?
The reality is that the BBC has positions, it's employees and contractors have positions, so is it not better that we, the viewers, understand those positions and and filter the BBC output accordingly?
In fact, it might be helpful if all BBC on screen and editorial staff were more open and more vocal about their political affiliations and beliefs. At least that way we might avoid the desperate arguments about the BBC supposedly being 'balanced' when it simply isn't and hasn't really ever been.
People can then listen to any report/comment/opinion being expressed by BBC staff (and contractors) on the basis of a better understanding of the starting position of whoever is expressing that report/comment/opinion. It's a bit like selecting your daily newspaper. You purchase the Guardian knowing it will have a particular take on a story, whilst you might purchase the Telegraph for a somewhat different view of that same story. One knows what one is buying in that sense, and we pay for the BBC service, so what's the problem? What we have now at the BBC is supposedly authoritative journalism predicated an assumption that it's supposed to be neither Guardian nor Telegraph, when the truth is rather different.
The issue is quite complex, and the people who criticise the BBC as being unbiased often do so becuase its an easy accusation to make to further their own agenda.
Some simply do not like the idea of a publicly funded media organisation, and resent the TV license as an additional tax.
The loudest voices come from other media companies who do not want to compete with a publically funded media organisation.
Political parties in opposition often think that they do not get fair amount of coverage compared to the political party in Government; often given just a brief soundbite to express opposition to a polticial issue.
You have fringe groups who feel the BBC is part of the 'Establishment' or the 'deep state' or 'the Elite'.
This muddies the water when it comes to questioning biases when Governments are able to meddle with the BBC's funding model, and have significant influence on the appointment of key people to manage the BBC.
Gweeds said:
crankedup5 said:
Sadly you are concentrating on critiquing the poster and not the issue. This approach may offer you some form of satisfaction unfortunately doesn’t address the issues. Try answering the points I have previously raised.
When the poster (you, btw, so it's a little odd to refer to yourself in the 3rd-person) does nothing but mount defences of a clearly inept government then they become one and the same.The issue is that the government who has been in power for 13 years has failed to 'take back control' and 'close the borders' whilst at the same time turning the HO into a complete basket-case.
As HM-2 points out - do let us know how said government is doing on the manifesto pledges you're so keen to trumpet.
It’s not a matter of ‘trumpeting’ Government policies, although it’s obvious that some in here were unaware that it is a manifesto promise made 2019. That is the current Government
You are at liberty of course to raise other issues in a separate thread which will avoid corrupting this one.
crankedup5 said:
andymadmak said:
Eric Mc said:
andymadmak said:
Let's start with the simple bit: Anyone making public references to 1930s Germany when talking about UK Government policy is being inflammatory.
Actually, it's spot-on. What was being said and put about in (say) 1930-33 in Germany regarding certain groups of people was not that dissimilar to what is being said today here in the UK about certain groups of people. In fact, you should read what people were saying in the UK in the 1930s about certain groups of people.It always starts small.
crankedup5 said:
andymadmak said:
Eric Mc said:
andymadmak said:
Let's start with the simple bit: Anyone making public references to 1930s Germany when talking about UK Government policy is being inflammatory.
Actually, it's spot-on. What was being said and put about in (say) 1930-33 in Germany regarding certain groups of people was not that dissimilar to what is being said today here in the UK about certain groups of people. In fact, you should read what people were saying in the UK in the 1930s about certain groups of people.It always starts small.
crankedup5 said:
Mrr T said:
crankedup5 said:
monthou said:
crankedup5 said:
You’re certainly not winning me over to your side of this division, and that is what matters isn’t it ?
How many minds do you think you've changed?https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan
crankedup5 said:
It’s not a matter of ‘trumpeting’ Government policies, although it’s obvious that some in here were unaware that it is a manifesto promise made 2019. That is the current Government
This is the total mentions of 'migrants' and 'asylum seekers' in the 2019 Conservative manifesto (with full paragraphs for context):2019 Conservative Manifesto said:
The vote to leave the EU was, among other things, a vote to take back control of our borders.
That is why a majority Conservative Government will get Brexit done, and then introduce a firmer and fairer Australian-style points-based immigration system, so that we can decide who comes to this country on the basis of the skills they have and the contribution they can make – not where they come from.
Migrants will contribute to the NHS – and pay in before they can receive benefits. Our new system gives us real control over who is coming in and out. It
allows us to attract the best and brightest from all over the world. Only by establishing immigration controls and ending freedom of movement will we be able to attract the high-skilled workers we need to contribute to our economy, our communities and our public services.
There will be fewer lower-skilled migrants and overall numbers will come down. And we will ensure that the British people are always in control
We want the UK to be a magnet for the best and brightest, with special immigration routes for those who will make the biggest contribution. We will create bespoke visa schemes for new migrants who will fill shortages in our public services, build the companies and innovations of the future and benefit Britain for years to come
We will boost English language teaching to empower existing migrants and help promote integration into society.
We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution, with the ultimate aim of helping them to return home if it is safe to do so.
We will ensure that the historic contribution of migrant groups is recognised. We will maintain our support for a memorial recognising the contribution of the Windrush Generation in a prominent site in London.
People coming into the country from the EU will only be able to access unemployment, housing, and child benefit after five years, in the way non-EEA migrants currently do.
Presumably you'd point to the "take back control of our borders" line as an all-encompassing mandate for the government's current stances and policies. But the specifics offer no such things, and in fact include a commitment to grant asylum to legitimate refugees without qualification. Nothing about deportation to Africa, nothing about piling people up in hotels, nothing about failing to resource the Home Office and Border Force properly, nothing about dealing with the massive backlog of applications that has been allowed to accumulate, nothing about undercutting or stopping people traffickers, nothing about legal routes and processes. That is why a majority Conservative Government will get Brexit done, and then introduce a firmer and fairer Australian-style points-based immigration system, so that we can decide who comes to this country on the basis of the skills they have and the contribution they can make – not where they come from.
Migrants will contribute to the NHS – and pay in before they can receive benefits. Our new system gives us real control over who is coming in and out. It
allows us to attract the best and brightest from all over the world. Only by establishing immigration controls and ending freedom of movement will we be able to attract the high-skilled workers we need to contribute to our economy, our communities and our public services.
There will be fewer lower-skilled migrants and overall numbers will come down. And we will ensure that the British people are always in control
We want the UK to be a magnet for the best and brightest, with special immigration routes for those who will make the biggest contribution. We will create bespoke visa schemes for new migrants who will fill shortages in our public services, build the companies and innovations of the future and benefit Britain for years to come
We will boost English language teaching to empower existing migrants and help promote integration into society.
We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution, with the ultimate aim of helping them to return home if it is safe to do so.
We will ensure that the historic contribution of migrant groups is recognised. We will maintain our support for a memorial recognising the contribution of the Windrush Generation in a prominent site in London.
People coming into the country from the EU will only be able to access unemployment, housing, and child benefit after five years, in the way non-EEA migrants currently do.
The 'fewer lower-skilled migrants and overall numbers will come down' bit will be interesting to judge the government's performance on come election time.
andymadmak said:
I don't agree. The circumstances and political motivations in 1930s Germany is in no way similar to the UK today imho.
We'll agree to differ then. The CAUSES of "othering" are not that important. The fact that "othering" is used as a political tool is the issue. And there are strong signs that certain individuals and groups are quite willing to go down that path - just like we saw in the 1930s - and not JUST in Germany.S600BSB said:
Eric Mc said:
andymadmak said:
Let's start with the simple bit: Anyone making public references to 1930s Germany when talking about UK Government policy is being inflammatory.
Actually, it's spot-on. What was being said and put about in (say) 1930-33 in Germany regarding certain groups of people was not that dissimilar to what is being said today here in the UK about certain groups of people. In fact, you should read what people were saying in the UK in the 1930s about certain groups of people.It always starts small.
He compared the language being used. And from some comparison that I have seen, despite it being inflammatory, it's a slam-dunk
We have a lot of issues as a country. I (and I believe many others) felt forced to pick their "least worst" option at previous elections
I'm not a Tory - I voted for then last time out as I felt that they were a better option for our economy
We have millions stuck in a political wilderness whilst those at the extremes scream at each other from both sides of the divide. I live in a red-wall area, inhabited by many migrants, voted remain (just, on the balance of probabilities) and have never felt so disenfranchised
I don't believe in open borders, but I also don't believe in draconian rejection of all migrants or refugees. I didn't agree with leaving the EU, but felt that it needed huge reform that we should have fought from within. I believe in a welfare state and NHS, but not the behemoths that they have become
It's time for a reform. Elements that need to be dealt with with long term vision (education, health etc.) should be cross-party. And we need the left and right wing to stop spouting bile, and start working for the good of the country
For the record, I would put myself just slightly right of centre
It wasn't policy it was language.
You have a Government talking about people as an "invasion" and demonising migrants and their lawyers in an attempt to turn public sentiment.
If you support that sort of rhetoric but think what Lineker said is inflammatory and divisive I'm not surprised if you don't like it when someone holds up a mirror.
You have a Government talking about people as an "invasion" and demonising migrants and their lawyers in an attempt to turn public sentiment.
If you support that sort of rhetoric but think what Lineker said is inflammatory and divisive I'm not surprised if you don't like it when someone holds up a mirror.
crankedup5 said:
Yes, it’s ridiculous to suggest such things, it completely ignores the fact that we have General Elections available to us. Comes under the heading of hyperbole.
You don’t half set yourself up sometimes Cranky, might be worth pausing for breath now and then, otherwise people might stop taking you seriously!!On the subject, Lineker drew a parallel with the language and style, for anyone bothered to invest a little time studying the German propaganda machine in the early 1930’s, he has a point. It’s ignorant to dismiss the remarks as inflammatory, they’re factually correct. Nobody, including our mate Gary is suggesting we are on the threshold of becoming the fourth Reich.
andymadmak said:
Let's start with the simple bit: Anyone making public references to 1930s Germany when talking about UK Government policy is being inflammatory. It's not really acceptable, nor is it particularly accurate imho - That assessment applies to Lineker,
Lineker compared the language of the UK Govt to 1930s Germany, which is factually correct. It wasn't even an original thought of his, he basically copied , what Joan Salter, a Holocaust survivor, said a couple of months ago. But strangely enough, all those booming voices calling Lineker out were less keen to take on Joan salter.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It doesn't apply to Lineker, because he has never compared UK govt policy to 1930s Germany. This falsehood has been peddled by the right to discredit Lineker from day 1. It's an outright lie, and should be accepted as such by Lineker lovers, haters, and those in between.
Lineker compared the language of the UK Govt to 1930s Germany, which is factually correct. It wasn't even an original thought of his, he basically copied , what Joan Salter, a Holocaust survivor, said a couple of months ago. But strangely enough, all those booming voices calling Lineker out were less keen to take on Joan salter.
Braverman gave it a go.Lineker compared the language of the UK Govt to 1930s Germany, which is factually correct. It wasn't even an original thought of his, he basically copied , what Joan Salter, a Holocaust survivor, said a couple of months ago. But strangely enough, all those booming voices calling Lineker out were less keen to take on Joan salter.
ZedLeg said:
crankedup5 said:
andymadmak said:
Eric Mc said:
andymadmak said:
Let's start with the simple bit: Anyone making public references to 1930s Germany when talking about UK Government policy is being inflammatory.
Actually, it's spot-on. What was being said and put about in (say) 1930-33 in Germany regarding certain groups of people was not that dissimilar to what is being said today here in the UK about certain groups of people. In fact, you should read what people were saying in the UK in the 1930s about certain groups of people.It always starts small.
sugerbear said:
crankedup5 said:
andymadmak said:
Eric Mc said:
andymadmak said:
Let's start with the simple bit: Anyone making public references to 1930s Germany when talking about UK Government policy is being inflammatory.
Actually, it's spot-on. What was being said and put about in (say) 1930-33 in Germany regarding certain groups of people was not that dissimilar to what is being said today here in the UK about certain groups of people. In fact, you should read what people were saying in the UK in the 1930s about certain groups of people.It always starts small.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff