Gary Lineker

[HM-2]

turbobloke said:

Gweeds said:

chrispmartha said:

You ‘support’ genuine asylum seekers by wanting them to be arrested and flown to Rwanda?

Strange way of supporting them.

But remember it’s a paradise and anyone sent there should feel ‘blessed’.

It looks like you forgot to mention the sunny uplands.

Sending asylum seekers to an authoritarian state that systematically disappears it's political opposition and actively promotes citizens informing on their neighbours "unpatriotic" activities doesn't really feel like "sunlit uplands".

Edited by HM-2 on Tuesday 21st March 08:32

[Electro1980]

crankedup5 said:

Electro1980 said:

crankedup5 said:

Mrr T said:

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?

Strange, I haven’t set out to change anybodies mindset, why would I want or need to do that when my elected Government has the issue as a manifesto promise?

What manifesto promise was that?

https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan

That comes under the third bullet point on the link that you provided, thanks.

The third point is about a points based immigration system. Absolutely nothing to do with asylum seekers. Which is covered briefly elsewhere when the tory promise to maintain the obligation under international treaties.

Nope, it includes control of our borders, what’s so difficult in that simple concept that you fail to understand?

“An Australian-style points-based system to control immigration.”

Absolutely nothing to do with asylum seekers. If anyone read that as being about asylum seekers they probably shouldn’t be voting.

And yet the reality is our Government is set to ‘stop the small boats’. That’s the reality.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that it was a manifesto promise.

[Electro1980]

bhstewie said:

Oh everyone supports genuine asylum seekers.

Just don't ask them whether they're secretly quite content that there are so few official routes here to claim asylum.

Something something first safe country something something economic migrants something something YOU LOVE PEOPLE SMUGGLING!!!

[Gweeds]

turbobloke said:

It looks like you forgot to mention the sunny uplands.

I'm merely repeating the words of our beloved Home Sec.

[andymadmak]

cirian75 said:

This might help

said:

Peter Hitchens challenged people (Gary Lineker in particular) to justify why Gary had said that he thought the language being used around asylum seekers/boat people (etc) was 'not dissimilar' (Gary's words) to that of Germany in the 1930s.

Note: Gary said 'not dissimilar' ie he wasn't claiming that it was identical. And he said 1930s,
which to be clear is not the 1940s.

I've assembled a short checklist: Rhetoric around citizenship and taking citizenship away from people eg Shamima Begum and
Windrush generation. 'Fremdenrecht' is a pre-Nazi idea but adopted by the Nazis to remove German citizenship from German Jews.

Removal of citizenship was called 'Ausbürgerung: By repeatedly declaring people 'illegal' before they've been tried, is 'not dissimilar to "Willensstrafrecht'. This was a punishment for criminal intent, not the crime itself. The law was called 'Täterstrafrecht'.
'Madagaskarplan' - the plan to ship Jews to Madagascar.

The idea of shipping "unwanted' people to other another country 'not dissimilar to the Rwanda scheme.

As an aside, the press have called shipping people to Rwanda as the 'Rwanda Plan' or the 'Rwanda Asylum Plan', unknowingly imitating 'Madagaskarplan', perhaps? Don't know if Ms SB
has expressed it as that.

Perhaps not.
Ms Braverman has used the phrase 'cultural Marxism'. This owes its origins to the Nazis' word 'Kulturbolschewismus' though Ms Braverman may only personally know its roots to US politics.

Ms Braverman and her colleagues are engaged in some kind of culture war(s). This is 'not dissimilar to the 'Kulturkrieg' which started before the Nazis but was very much engaged in by
the Nazis.

'60,000RM kostet dieser Erbkranke die Volksgemeinschaft auf Lebenzeit. Volksgenosse das ist auch dein Geld" = "This hereditarily ill person will cost our national community 60,000 Reichmarks over the course of his lifetime. Citizen, this is your money." This is an example of people seen as 'costing us!
Ms Braverman's persistent labelling of migrants as criminal (and/or the traffickers') even though many migrants are granted asylum is 'not dissimilar' to the Nazis' adoption of 'Asoziale' (noun) ('Asocials') which created a category of perpetual criminality in people.

The Nazi word 'Fremdmoral". "Fremd' translates roughly as 'alien'. The Nazis believed that lesser, foreign people had worse morals. Suella Braverman says police chiefs have told her "that drug supply... is now connected to people who came here on small boats illegally".

There is quite a lot of dancing on the head of a pin there. The last point is interesting... are Police Officers at (1930s Germany) fault for telling Braverman about the links between drug supply and people who enter illegally on small boats?
Anyway, such nuances matter not one jot now. Of course, it could genuinely be the case that Lineker is a student of 1930s German politics and was fully aware of all the points and nuances that Rosen goes into here. On the other hand Lineker could simply be making a lazy reference to 1930s Germany and intending immediate "Nazi" type associations to be made.
I suppose we'll never really know the truth of it.

[crankedup5]

Electro1980 said:

crankedup5 said:

Electro1980 said:

crankedup5 said:

Mrr T said:

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?

Strange, I haven’t set out to change anybodies mindset, why would I want or need to do that when my elected Government has the issue as a manifesto promise?

What manifesto promise was that?

https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan

That comes under the third bullet point on the link that you provided, thanks.

The third point is about a points based immigration system. Absolutely nothing to do with asylum seekers. Which is covered briefly elsewhere when the tory promise to maintain the obligation under international treaties.

Nope, it includes control of our borders, what’s so difficult in that simple concept that you fail to understand?

“An Australian-style points-based system to control immigration.”

Absolutely nothing to do with asylum seekers. If anyone read that as being about asylum seekers they probably shouldn’t be voting.

And yet the reality is our Government is set to ‘stop the small boats’. That’s the reality.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that it was a manifesto promise.

I disagree, it is everything to do with taking back control of our borders. And that is why Government is actively seeking a solution to the small boat crisis.

[ZedLeg]

You realise "taking control of our borders" doesn't mean anything. It's a soundbite designed to appeal to a demographic of voters.

We already control our borders, you'll notice this when you have to go through customs to get in.

I'm curious as to how people expect to realistically monitor our entire coastline 24/7, as that would appear to be what they want.

[Electro1980]

crankedup5 said:

Electro1980 said:

crankedup5 said:

Electro1980 said:

crankedup5 said:

Mrr T said:

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?

Strange, I haven’t set out to change anybodies mindset, why would I want or need to do that when my elected Government has the issue as a manifesto promise?

What manifesto promise was that?

https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan

That comes under the third bullet point on the link that you provided, thanks.

The third point is about a points based immigration system. Absolutely nothing to do with asylum seekers. Which is covered briefly elsewhere when the tory promise to maintain the obligation under international treaties.

Nope, it includes control of our borders, what’s so difficult in that simple concept that you fail to understand?

“An Australian-style points-based system to control immigration.”

Absolutely nothing to do with asylum seekers. If anyone read that as being about asylum seekers they probably shouldn’t be voting.

And yet the reality is our Government is set to ‘stop the small boats’. That’s the reality.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that it was a manifesto promise.

I disagree, it is everything to do with taking back control of our borders. And that is why Government is actively seeking a solution to the small boat crisis.

The manifesto pledge doesn’t say “ taking back control of our borders” thought.

All I’m taking from this is you want to stop the UK taking refugees (ye ye blah blah blah Ukraine blah blah blah Hong Kong).

[crankedup5]

ZedLeg said:

You realise "taking control of our borders" doesn't mean anything. It's a soundbite designed to appeal to a demographic of voters.

We already control our borders, you'll notice this when you have to go through customs to get in.

I'm curious as to how people expect to realistically monitor our entire coastline 24/7, as that would appear to be what they want.

Yes of course it’s a sound bite, but it’s a convenient tag line to use. I agree we cannot and have never had such tight control measures of our borders that exclude illegal entry into U.K. That is almost impossible to achieve of course. We have a long tradition of smugglers taking advantage of our coastline which continues to this day.
The point is ‘taking back control’ of our borders is shorthand for stopping FOM whilst we were in the EU (accomplished) and stopping illegal entry into U.K. via small boats crossing the English channel. Most reasonable people know exactly what the sound bite means, even those who disagree with the principle.

[ZedLeg]

Again though, how do we stop them? Realistically there isn't an effective way to stop this kind of border crossing. Talk of "taking back our borders" is the equivalent of the "build the wall" patter in America. It'll do fk all but they get to spend lots of money and look like they're doing something.

[sugerbear]

andymadmak said:

There is quite a lot of dancing on the head of a pin there. The last point is interesting... are Police Officers at (1930s Germany) fault for telling Braverman about the links between drug supply and people who enter illegally on small boats?
Anyway, such nuances matter not one jot now. Of course, it could genuinely be the case that Lineker is a student of 1930s German politics and was fully aware of all the points and nuances that Rosen goes into here. On the other hand Lineker could simply be making a lazy reference to 1930s Germany and intending immediate "Nazi" type associations to be made.
I suppose we'll never really know the truth of it.

Can you supply some evidence that either a police chief or a PCC has publicly suggested that?

It wouldn't be the first time she hasn't been honest https://www.bigissue.com/news/politics/exclusive-s...

[crankedup5]

Electro1980 said:

crankedup5 said:

Electro1980 said:

crankedup5 said:

Electro1980 said:

crankedup5 said:

Mrr T said:

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?

Strange, I haven’t set out to change anybodies mindset, why would I want or need to do that when my elected Government has the issue as a manifesto promise?

What manifesto promise was that?

https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan

That comes under the third bullet point on the link that you provided, thanks.

The third point is about a points based immigration system. Absolutely nothing to do with asylum seekers. Which is covered briefly elsewhere when the tory promise to maintain the obligation under international treaties.

Nope, it includes control of our borders, what’s so difficult in that simple concept that you fail to understand?

“An Australian-style points-based system to control immigration.”

Absolutely nothing to do with asylum seekers. If anyone read that as being about asylum seekers they probably shouldn’t be voting.

And yet the reality is our Government is set to ‘stop the small boats’. That’s the reality.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that it was a manifesto promise.

I disagree, it is everything to do with taking back control of our borders. And that is why Government is actively seeking a solution to the small boat crisis.

The manifesto pledge doesn’t say “ taking back control of our borders” thought.

All I’m taking from this is you want to stop the UK taking refugees (ye ye blah blah blah Ukraine blah blah blah Hong Kong).

You obviously didn’t read my posts regarding Hong Kong, Ukraine and other genuine refugee seekers coming to U.K. It might surprise you to know of my support for those schemes introduced for those situations.
When Boris was elected 2019 it was clearly stated his promise to ‘take back control’ of our borders.
But getting bogged down in the wording used is pointless, The intention is clear enough, hence page after page of debate in here.

[andymadmak]

sugerbear said:

andymadmak said:

There is quite a lot of dancing on the head of a pin there. The last point is interesting... are Police Officers at (1930s Germany) fault for telling Braverman about the links between drug supply and people who enter illegally on small boats?
Anyway, such nuances matter not one jot now. Of course, it could genuinely be the case that Lineker is a student of 1930s German politics and was fully aware of all the points and nuances that Rosen goes into here. On the other hand Lineker could simply be making a lazy reference to 1930s Germany and intending immediate "Nazi" type associations to be made.
I suppose we'll never really know the truth of it.

Can you supply some evidence that either a police chief or a PCC has publicly suggested that?

That's not the claim being made though. SB claims that Officers have told her, which could easily have happened during private (ie, not public) meetings. Now, if she's lying about that then a FOI request would probably show that up wouldn't it? I assume that most meetings between the Home Sec and Senior Police Officers would be minuted.

Edited by andymadmak on Tuesday 21st March 11:41

[HM-2]

crankedup5 said:

I disagree

You can disagree with what you like, you're interpretation here is wrong as the link provided confirms.

[Electro1980]

crankedup5 said:

Electro1980 said:

The manifesto pledge doesn’t say “ taking back control of our borders” thought.

All I’m taking from this is you want to stop the UK taking refugees (ye ye blah blah blah Ukraine blah blah blah Hong Kong).

You obviously didn’t read my posts regarding Hong Kong, Ukraine and other genuine refugee seekers coming to U.K. It might surprise you to know of my support for those schemes introduced for those situations.
When Boris was elected 2019 it was clearly stated his promise to ‘take back control’ of our borders.
But getting bogged down in the wording used is pointless, The intention is clear enough, hence page after page of debate in here.

That’s exactly why I referenced Ukraine and Hong Kong. I’m not surprised at all and know full well your bizarre ideas that a few schemes of a few specific cases somehow absolves the UK of any obligation to anyone else fleeing violence.

It’s not getting bogged down in wording. You specifically said it was in the manifesto. This is clearly not the case.

[crankedup5]

HM-2 said:

crankedup5 said:

I disagree

You can disagree with what you like, you're interpretation here is wrong as the link provided confirms.

The newspaper article for me does not fully reflect the views expressed by Andrew Neil in his own TV program and in his article within the Mail on Sunday Looks like it comes down to which journalist suits ones bias, me, I will accept it from the ‘horses mouth’.

[sugerbear]

andymadmak said:

sugerbear said:

andymadmak said:

There is quite a lot of dancing on the head of a pin there. The last point is interesting... are Police Officers at (1930s Germany) fault for telling Braverman about the links between drug supply and people who enter illegally on small boats?
Anyway, such nuances matter not one jot now. Of course, it could genuinely be the case that Lineker is a student of 1930s German politics and was fully aware of all the points and nuances that Rosen goes into here. On the other hand Lineker could simply be making a lazy reference to 1930s Germany and intending immediate "Nazi" type associations to be made.
I suppose we'll never really know the truth of it.

Can you supply some evidence that either a police chief or a PCC has publicly suggested that?

That's not the claim being made though. SB claims that Officers have told her, which could easily have happened during private (ie, not public) meetings. Now, if she's lying about that then a FOI request would probably show that up wouldn't it? I assume that most meetings between the Home Sec and Senior Police Officers would be minuted.

Edited by andymadmak on Tuesday 21st March 11:41

So you dont think she is getting this info from senior police officers, she is actually getting it from regular police officers and the senior police officers and PCC's are covering it up?

[andymadmak]

sugerbear said:

andymadmak said:

sugerbear said:

andymadmak said:

There is quite a lot of dancing on the head of a pin there. The last point is interesting... are Police Officers at (1930s Germany) fault for telling Braverman about the links between drug supply and people who enter illegally on small boats?
Anyway, such nuances matter not one jot now. Of course, it could genuinely be the case that Lineker is a student of 1930s German politics and was fully aware of all the points and nuances that Rosen goes into here. On the other hand Lineker could simply be making a lazy reference to 1930s Germany and intending immediate "Nazi" type associations to be made.
I suppose we'll never really know the truth of it.

Can you supply some evidence that either a police chief or a PCC has publicly suggested that?

That's not the claim being made though. SB claims that Officers have told her, which could easily have happened during private (ie, not public) meetings. Now, if she's lying about that then a FOI request would probably show that up wouldn't it? I assume that most meetings between the Home Sec and Senior Police Officers would be minuted.

Edited by andymadmak on Tuesday 21st March 11:41

So you dont think she is getting this info from senior police officers, she is actually getting it from regular police officers and the senior police officers and PCC's are covering it up?

Eh? I am saying that just because Senior Officers have not made public pronouncements on the matter does not mean that they haven't discussed it with the HS. If they have, and if they have made the allegations that the HS says they have, then an FOI request for the minutes of those meetings would prove her point (or disprove her point if the Officers never made such claims)
Simply put, she's either lying or she isn't. An FOI request might prove it either way.

[crankedup5]

turbobloke said:

Gweeds said:

chrispmartha said:

You ‘support’ genuine asylum seekers by wanting them to be arrested and flown to Rwanda?

Strange way of supporting them.

But remember it’s a paradise and anyone sent there should feel ‘blessed’.

It looks like you forgot to mention the sunny uplands.

Yup, it has to be remembered that the Rwanda policy proposal is considered to be deterrent to those people considering coming to the U.K. via those small boats. We don’t want them to consider Rwanda will be a land of milk and honey but at the same time Rwanda is a Country able to provide a decent future that rewards hard work.

[JagLover]

andymadmak said:

sugerbear said:

andymadmak said:

There is quite a lot of dancing on the head of a pin there. The last point is interesting... are Police Officers at (1930s Germany) fault for telling Braverman about the links between drug supply and people who enter illegally on small boats?
Anyway, such nuances matter not one jot now. Of course, it could genuinely be the case that Lineker is a student of 1930s German politics and was fully aware of all the points and nuances that Rosen goes into here. On the other hand Lineker could simply be making a lazy reference to 1930s Germany and intending immediate "Nazi" type associations to be made.
I suppose we'll never really know the truth of it.

Can you supply some evidence that either a police chief or a PCC has publicly suggested that?

That's not the claim being made though. SB claims that Officers have told her, which could easily have happened during private (ie, not public) meetings. Now, if she's lying about that then a FOI request would probably show that up wouldn't it? I assume that most meetings between the Home Sec and Senior Police Officers would be minuted.

Haven't read the past few pages so may be missing something but about a third of the boat migrants since May 22 are Albanian and the Albanian mafia controls most of Europe's drug trade so it isn't actually much a stretch to see a link.