Can someone shed some light on why Jackass Morgan is on Lineker's side? I always assumed that the Ronaldo fancying, dead schoolgirl's phone hacking bellend was the Toriest of all the Tories.
Jermaine Jenas in line to replace Gary Lineker - Ian Wright leaving MOTD
- Thread starter Hoof the ball
- Start date
I think, like Clarkson, he wants to take aim at the BBC rather than defend refugees.
What could he say about the government’s new policy on refugees that wouldn’t be considered a “strong political view either way”? That’s the madness here. Everything is so polarised it’s not possible to express an opinion on something like that without being accused of supporting one side or the other.
And is it reasonable for the BBC to ask its employees to never use their private social media to share their opinion on a topic like this? Because that seems to be the only way to actually be impartial.
He’s a colossal bellend but I don’t think even he’s a Tory. He was hugely anti-Johnson and Hancock et al and was a big advocate of new Labour at the mirror. Plus he’s anti-cancel culture etc.
Also free speech/cancel culture. He may be a loathsome toad but he’s shrewd enough to know what outrageous hypocrisy it would be for him to do anything other than back Lineker here.
So why was he allowed to promote a particular opinion on Qatar during the world cup? Why was Neil allowed to write for the spectator while working for the BBC? Why was Clarkson allowed to carry on doing his other journalistic work while working on top gear (unless someone corrects me)?
He was really good mates with Gordon Brown, ran the only labour tabloid, was massively for gun control in the USA, probably the biggest and one of the outspoken critics of the Tories during COVID. Politically he’s Labour other than during the Corbyn era.
Not all bellends are Tories.
Fyi fairly certain he isn’t linked to phone hacking and has threatened legal action regarding it
This all came a week too late.
Of course vast numbers will disagree with the policy and that’s fine but that really isn’t the issue it’s the suggestion that it’s akin to the holocaust that’s the bigger issue
Total opposite of me then.
I guess that’s because he’s not commenting on the politics of the state that employs him.
I have no answer to your other questions.
Sorry but that is ignoring what GL was inferring
He was also a vocal supporter of Donald Trump.
Not the policy. The language used to promote it.
As soon as they let him present the show in his underpants they were never going to be able to keep him grounded. Dickarus.
It also upset Suella Braverman whose husband is Jewish. Think of the real victim here.
He should return just to shit on the studio floor
Henry Winter suggesting that (at least some) players won't do post match broadcast duties with the BBC tomorrow and are being backed up by the PFA as they'll face fines for not doing them
Always found the idea of bbc dumb anyways, you never can be really impartial to begin with and for such a establishment to be funded by the public creates all sorts of dilemmas, it's a miracle it's lasted this long.
So what was was he saying ?
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/gary-lineker-nazis-tweet-holocaust-b2298127.html
PFA to support players who face fines for not completing required broadcast duties
I’m on red tonight, keep up Pexbo.
His tweet is linked to in that article. No mention of the holocaust.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The fact that I'm defending Piers Morgan on here isn't how I saw my night going; yes he was. He did say he wouldn't vote for him however.
Just saying historically he's been Labour
Technically speaking, the Final Solution didn’t start until 1941, so ‘1930s Germany’ actually can’t refer to the Holocaust at all.
Lineker was comparing the dehumanising language being used by government ministers like Braverman to the language used in relation to Jewish people in 1930s Germany. This may or may not be an accurate assessment, but considering an actual Holocaust survivor made the exact same point to Braverman’s face just a few weeks ago, at the very least it’s debatable.
Bollocks.
No one said that about BBC presenter Alan Sugar and his tweets on election day.
Thought he was UKIP
Only you have said that.
Lineker said the language used was similar to Germany in the 30s which is historically correct.
He said that the language used was reminiscent of the language used in 1930's Germany. The dehumanization of the other so that you can then justify cruel and inhumane treatment. He was correct, it takes no time at all to research the rhetoric of the era and if you substitute asylum seekers for the targets of the Nazi rhetoric it sounds the same. People constantly clutching their pearls and crying "how dare you compare" are generally the ones who would have signed their kids up for the Hitler Youth at the first opportunity.
He never suggested that. The Tories did that because it's their standard deflection tactic. They can't argue the point so they make something up.
He said that her language - dehumanising her targets - was exactly like the language used in 1930s Germany. He's not wrong.
Andrew Neil too when he was still at BBC. Brexit Climate Change etc..
And 1980s Britain, if memory serves. Nothing changes. Same shit, different day.
Publicity. That's all. Morgan craves it like an addict craves dope.
So this is how the BBC + License fee ends? With a former England international player who shat his pants on the field, how poetic
In this instance, absolutely (as I said in my follow up post).
I was replying to a comment which said that most free speech advocacy occurs on the "right", and pointing out that at different times in recent history it has been the "left" championing free speech because at those times it was the "left" being censored.
Maybe if linekar loaned rishi £8million this may subside.