Anything Political

[Rob.L 1,049]

And while they’re all ranting and raving about Gary Lineker, they’re not saying a word about others who’ve made clear their opposition to the government’s plans. Surprisingly, they’ve not made the Daily Mail’s front page.

 

Here are one or two of them.

 

Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York 

Paul Butler, Bishop of Durham

Rose Hudson-Wilkin, Bishop of Dover

Paul McAleenan, Roman Catholic Bishop

Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg

Rabbi Charley Baginsky

Paul Parker, Recording Clerk of Quakers in Britain

Leaders from the Baptist, Methodist and United Reform churches

[HSR 276]

Always wondered, does Lineker write his own crap pun's at the end of each MOTD?

 

RAF Scampton next week, will the BEEB cover it?

 

I'm guessing it won't be topic on

QT..

Alerta..

 

[Stuart.C 430]

If I was the person at the Beeb, or any other organisation that might have every man (person) cat or dog ready to jump on them for things said by people with an influence, who are employed by the Beeb whether it be direct or under contract, I would have had concerns over the reference to Germany in the 30's not the basic criticism of U.K Gov.

 

I suspect Gary Lineker didn't think the comment through as it could be interpreted as suggesting that U.K Gov would be planning to carry out exterminations in the future.

 

I suspect no one else in a similar position criticising U.K Gov has made a similar comparison.

[The Engineer 542]

Just looked at the BBC News home page.  Apparently the most important topic in the world right now is that a former top-flight footballer turned freelance pundit is to 'return to air' on the Beeb after resolving an issue about some comments he made on social media that didn't fit with their guidelines on conduct.

Over on ITV news, the main story is about some 'showbiz' awards in America.

Meanwhile, a war rages on in the Ukraine, there is unrest in Greece after a train crash that killed dozens of people and a large tech bank in Silicon Valley has gone bust.

[philmayfield 5,506]

He’s coming back now so we can all rest safely in our beds. I’m usually fast asleep in mine when he’s on the TV so I don’t have to watch the overpaid crisp salesman.

[letsavagoo 837]

You’re going to come back DJ but are you really serious that the BBC are bias to the Tory government. Really. 
You name some well known BBC presenters who are Tory supporters but there are many many with allegiance to the left.
Secondly and Stavertongirl made this point, Lineker is such a high profile BBC presenter his views on political matters or anything else for that matter will not be seen as private views. The BBC backing down is a victory for the woke left. Shameful. 

[DJ360 6,385]

5 hours ago, Stuart.C said:

If I was the person at the Beeb, or any other organisation that might have every man (person) cat or dog ready to jump on them for things said by people with an influence, who are employed by the Beeb whether it be direct or under contract, I would have had concerns over the reference to Germany in the 30's not the basic criticism of U.K Gov.

 

I suspect Gary Lineker didn't think the comment through as it could be interpreted as suggesting that U.K Gov would be planning to carry out exterminations in the future.

 

I suspect no one else in a similar position criticising U.K Gov has made a similar comparison.

I disagree with your assessment of Linekers comment. It seems as though you have not heard the hysterical inflammatory language used by Braverman to describe migrants, in an attempt to not only divert from Govt. failures in all areas of policy and governance, including their 14 year failure to get a grip of the asylum system, but also a very distasteful attempt to vilify and scapegoat Migrants as well as deliberately whipping up fear and hatred. In my view, Lineker's description of Braverman's language was spot in. He did not mention Nazis or the holocaust, but he correctly described the exaggerated and inflammatory language used by Braverman, who in my view is unfit to hold office, because she seems incapable of stopping herself from being hateful.

[DJ360 6,385]

5 hours ago, The Engineer said:

Just looked at the BBC News home page.  Apparently the most important topic in the world right now is that a former top-flight footballer turned freelance pundit is to 'return to air' on the Beeb after resolving an issue about some comments he made on social media that didn't fit with their guidelines on conduct.

Over on ITV news, the main story is about some 'showbiz' awards in America.

Meanwhile, a war rages on in the Ukraine, there is unrest in Greece after a train crash that killed dozens of people and a large tech bank in Silicon Valley has gone bust.

I 've been watching the BBC News channel for a couple of hours now. Coverage so far has included the Lineker row, the Oscars, Farming , Doctor's strike, North Korea, Sunak in San Diego, Silicon Valley Bank, Ukraine, UK Conservation, Arab Oil profits, etc, etc.

I can't comment on ITV .

[DJ360 6,385]

1 hour ago, letsavagoo said:

You’re going to come back DJ but are you really serious that the BBC are bias to the Tory government. Really. 
You name some well known BBC presenters who are Tory supporters but there are many many with allegiance to the left.
Secondly and Stavertongirl made this point, Lineker is such a high profile BBC presenter his views on political matters or anything else for that matter will not be seen as private views. The BBC backing down is a victory for the woke left. Shameful. 

You bet I'm going to come back!

There are very few left leaning POLITICAL journalists in the BBC. Please check your facts.

Also please compare the total lack of censure of Neill, Kuenssberg, Bruce, et.  al. after they have used their positions as supposed impartial commentators to push their own agenda whilst broadcasting on political matters... with the IMMEDIATE suspension of Lineker after a PRIVATE tweet, clearly not representing the BBC and before any form of investigation.

The BBC has also admitted that the alleged guidelines have 'grey areas', whichbis not Lineker's fault.

Finally, what in God's name is 'the woke left'? Woke is a century old term which originated in the American civil rights movement. It simply means 'Alert to injustice' and I am very disturbed that you have joined with Braverman and many on the far right in deliberately  misusing the term 'Woke' in a pejorative  sense in an effort to discredit legitimate protest.

[letsavagoo 837]

You know very well what the woke left is I’m sure. 
ps. The weather here today is like Stalingrad 1942.

[DJ360 6,385]

I know the true meaning of 'woke'.

 

I don't know what you mean by the 'woke left'.

But it's clear you are using the term pejoratively so please tell me who the 'woke left' are, what 'woke left' means and why a victory for them  would be shameful.

[Stavertongirl 1,684]

Can I ask what does “woke” mean. Hear it bandied about but don’t have an idea what it means. 

[philmayfield 5,506]

In modern parlance it describes hypocritical close-minded people who are are unable to accept other people’s criticism or different perspective. Initially it was used to describe people who became more aware of social injustice.

[DJ360 6,385]

39 minutes ago, Stavertongirl said:

Can I ask what does “woke” mean. Hear it bandied about but don’t have an idea what it means. 

 As I said above. 'Woke' means 'Alert to injustice'.

Any other meaning is a recent attempt by certain elements on the political right to misrepresent, belittle or ridicule the 'woke'..jn an attempt to undermine rightful protest  campaigning etc.

This pejorative use of 'woke', seems to have emerged since Trump divided America, Black Lives Matter and other group pushed back etc.

The UK right, including far right groups such as the EDL et.al. and Braverman, who as a minister should know better, have also adopted their take on the Term. Woke is now used by some, in a similar manner to 'Snowflake' and cries of 'Political correctness gone mad', to try to discredit genuine concerns.

[DJ360 6,385]

38 minutes ago, philmayfield said:

In modern parlance it describes hypocritical close-minded people who are are unable to accept other people’s criticism or different perspective. Initially it was used to describe people who became more aware of social injustice.

Phil. Your first sentence assumes that 'Modern Times' commenced during Trump's presidency, as well as incorrectly defining even the pejorative sense of 'woke'.

[DJ360 6,385]

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/10/us/woke-race-deconstructed-newsletter-reaj/index.html

[letsavagoo 837]

Ernesto Elliot, originally from Jamaica, was due to deported back to his country of origin in December 2020, but a series of challenges stopped the flight. A number of high-profile celebrities and politicians supported the campaign to stop the deportation flight, including supermodel Naomi Campbell, actress Thandiwe Newton and historian David Olusoga.

He wasn’t deported and subsequently knifed someone to death.

Woke left.

[DJ360 6,385]

Seriously?

I'll be back in the morning.

[DJ360 6,385]

Right.

 

Point 1. The ONLY person responsible for Ernesto Elliot killing someone with a knife, is Ernesto Elliot. He made the decision to fight and he made the decision to use a knife.

 

Point 2. Whatever may have motivated some people to campaign against Elliot's deportation, those people were not the ones who decided to remove him from the deportation flight.

 

Point 3. If ,as it seems, Elliot was such a dangerous criminal... Who let him into this country and when?

 

Point 4. If Elliot was such a dangerous known criminal, why, after being removed from the deportation flight, was he seemingly released by the 'Authorities'?

 

So yes, something clearly went wrong with 'the system', but to leap from that inescapable fact, to trying to conflate a few people campaigning for him into some notion of 'The Woke Left', is patent nonsense.  Clearly, a lot of things went wrong here, but the basic facts are these:

 

UK Govt. failed to deport a criminal, then failed to supervise him, such that he was able to go on and kill. That's it.

 

It's also clear that the bulk of the hysteria surrounding the Elliot case was stoked by the Daily Mail and the Sun.  No surprise there, since neither is noted for either balanced, or factual reporting. The whole tenor or their hyped up reporting of the case is calculated to promote racist, xenophobic sentiments,

 

But, much more, it is a clear attempt to shift the blame for failure of Govt., and the Legal System, onto a few individuals, who were doubtless well meaning, but either misjudged, or were misinformed about the risk Elliot posed.

 

Furthermore, the Sun and Mail, go on to promote the MYTH of the 'Woke Left', as if it A. actually exists, and B., represents some sort of conspiracy. There is ZERO evidence for either.

 

Now, I invite you to read this rubbish from the Sun, and I ask you, to ask yourself, what this article is actually about? Here's a clue..it is NOT about Ernesto Elliot. Here's another clue.. It IS about promoting the FALSE NARRATIVE that some nefarious force on the British Political Left, is trying to tar the RIGHT with accusations of extremism.  THAT, is how lunatic the British print media has become, and millions suck up this tripe on a daily basis.

This article is just a chaotic jumble of half truths, innuendo and confused 'thinking', simply designed to push all the usual racist-xenophobic-'reds under the bed' etc. buttons, to get Mr and Mrs Gammon steaming and frothing with indignation.

But..spot the deliberate mistake... The article opens with an assertion that the problem with Britain today is that nobody is required to take responsibility for anything, ..and then goes on to use a few hundred words of drivel trying to shift responsibility for Elliot's crimes onto ANYBODY, but himself, and those who failed to deport him.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21548048/ernesto-elliott-deportation-killed-man/

 

For what it's worth, I have spent a long time searching the internet for information about when Elliot came to the UK, why he was up for deportation etc. I can find virtually nothing.  But I can find whole rafts of drivel like the Sun article above.

 

 

[DJ360 6,385]

And another thing...

 

As a useful term.. 'Woke' is now dead.

 

It's original meaning has been so thoroughly corrupted as to no longer work, and the recent ironic-pejorative use of 'Woke' is so poorly understood even by those using it, as to render it useless.

[letsavagoo 837]

He came here in 1983 from Jamaica and then began his criminal activities. He wasn’t let in as a known dangerous man. That took me about 30 seconds to find. Since he’s had a long criminal career including possession of an imitation firearm. 
The government wanted to deport him. He was a dangerous violent man and should have quite rightly been deported. The failure to do so was due to protests from the people I mentioned and allegedly ‘Labour MP’s’ and not the government.
The protesters didn’t physically remove him but that was their focus and aim so share the responsibility.

You are way off the mark to lay the blame with the government whatever your opinion of them. He was actually on the plane when he was taken off and used the human rights act (thanks Mrs Blair) to stay here. No doubt the tax payer footed his legal bill.  Look through the half truths innuendo etc etc and look at the facts.
1. Tried to deport dangerous man.
2. Thwarted following protests.

3. Dangerous man kills. 

You say they were well meaning and misguided. I say woke. 

I absolutely agree that the blame for the killing is entirely his but if he’d been deported he would not have had the opportunity to commit the offence he did.

The authorities likely released him as he was being deported as an ‘undesirable’ maybe following a sentence served and that having been scuttled they could not detain him. 
Racism has nothing to do with this.

I wonder if it was someone murdered that you had known or cared for by Elliott you would feel the same. I wonder if all those who took part in achieving his staying here will share the cost of incarceration.

 

[DJ360 6,385]

Letsav,

Shall we continue by establishing what we agree on?

 

First the only one responsible for the murder, is the murderer, Elliot. Agreed.

 

Second. If he had been deported, he would not have had the opportunity to kill in the UK. Those are inescapable facts.

 

So let's move on to who, if anyone, is to blame.

 

You contend that those who campaigned for his release are to blame, and as far as I can tell, you don't accept that Govt., the Home Office or the UK legal system bears any responsibility.

 

That is the first point on which we differ. Those people campaigned, as far as you or I know, in 'good faith'. I doubt any of them would have supported him knowing he would go on to kill, but they didn't know that, nobody did.  Maybe also useful to consider that there is a broad background to this in that numerous Carribean migrants who came here legally as part of the 'Windrush Generation', have suffered injustice and wrongful deportation at the hands of the Home Office.

 

I doubt there's a judge on the planet who would argue that his 'supporters', were to blame for events six weeks later, or whenever, but I'll come back to that general principle later.

 

I contend that the fault here lies with the chaotic state of our 'Immigration' laws, the whole Home Office fiasco and the Legal System which inevitably gets involved. (I'm using Immigration as a loose term here, so maybe we don't need to argue about that in this context). I think it is entirely reasonable to question the Leadership and competence of the Home Office and the Police in this case. One would like to think that they understand the Law and it's application rather better than a gaggle of supporters, 'Woke' or otherwise.

 

I'd say the murder can be seen at least partly as a consequence of the failed deportation, but it is a very long way from that, to attaching blame to his 'supporters', especially since he was actually freed by (I presume) Home Office Officials, who were unable to win their case legally.

 

Still, I doubt we'll agree on the above, so maybe agree to differ.

 

So now let's re-visit 'Woke'.

As I've said a couple of times now. Those Elliot supporters who you villify, may or may not bear some responsibility for the subsequent death. I don't think so, but even if I did, calling them 'Woke' would not be on my radar.

 

In my view, the minute you invoke the 'pejorative/ironic' usage of 'Woke', you join in with the Culture War being stoked by the Conservative Right..

 

That Culture War basically assigns 'Woke', to anyone who disagrees with Tory Right policy, actions and pronouncements. So it not only attempts to ridicule ALL opposition, but it also attempts to establish the FALSE principle that all opposition is somehow morally wrong and that furthermore, all opposition is Woke, and that all opposition is part of some sort of conspiracy.  This, as I've said previously, is patent nonsense. (Have you seen the state of disarray on the political left lately?) BUT, it allows the Conservative Right to argue that ALL opposition is somehow wrong, dangerous, immoral, or whatever suits...

 

It is only a step from that 'War on Woke', to arguing that 'If you aren't with us, you are against us'.  And that, is how Hitler, Stalin, Putin and numerous others operate(d), and why Lineker Tweeted what he did. But it's also a crude, yet effective tactic for winning votes in spite of an appalling record in Govt.

 

Trust me, the current Conservative Government is likely 'toast', at the next General Election and so they should be, having spent 14 years breaking Britain, our economy, our public services, our infrastructure, our health service etc.. and demonstrating breathtaking levels of incompetence, sleaze and corruption.

 

So, they have chosen instead, to invoke a Culture War and the central weapon in their armoury is fear.  So they stoke the 'Woke' myth. and they attach it to fear of Immigration, the facts and numbers of which they routinely exaggerate. Why else, when our economy etc., is in meltdown, do they focus on 'Stop the Boats'..and yet are unable to do so?  Simple.. they don't want to stop the boats, because they are a convenient diversion from all the bigger problems they have created.

 

Add in Braverman with ludicrous claims that 'Billions will invade us', and of course that will be the fear they will attach to the possibility of a Labour Govt, who, according to them will 'Open the floodgates'.  More nonsense, but effective, especially when re-inforced by the routine hysteria in the DM and Sun.

 

Those boats could be stopped pretty much overnight, by providing a properly organised system of LEGAL means to apply for Asylum etc.  Such routes have been closed..hence, the boats. Also, if a Legal route is established, it is obvious that anyone who has no claim, can be rejected or deported without Britain needing to break International Law. Win Win.

 

Finally (for now....), I said I'd come back to the general principle of blame, unintended consequences etc.

 

So..suppose I campaigned for the abolition of the Motorway speed limit,  somehow succeeded and then saw a rise in fatal accidents.  Who would be to blame/  Drivers?. Those who agreed to lift the speed limit?  Me?

 

What about the Senior Police Officers, Commissioners or whatever who have been shown to have routinely failed in their duty to get rid of known Rapist/Misogynistic/Racist Police Officers, including some serial Rapists and the low life who murdered Sarah Everard. 

Does any blame attach to them?

Are they the 'Woke Right?'

[letsavagoo 837]

Well let’s face it Col, we’ll never agree. Comparing motorway speed limits etc is a totally different thing and of no relevance in this and I’ll ignore it. 
All I’ll say is that the home office were to deport him as he was dangerous. They were sadly, for the subsequent victim proved right. I’m sure all those who campaigned for his stay regret that now. I will say that the lawyers who stopped his deportation were doubtless funded by the tax payer so the government are funding work against themselves which is a ludicrous situation. As many Tory’s have a legal background I’m sure they’re happy with this. I will also agree that the chance of a Tory victory at the next election is very unlikely. 
Unfortunately we won’t fear any better under a Labour government as history has shown but we won’t agree on that so let’s agree to differ and leave it there. 

[MargieH 7,423]

I’m finding this particular debate quite interesting.  
 Letsavagoo, in my mind I’ve changed your name to LetsavaBREW  

 

 

[DJ360 6,385]

Follow the Twitter link in this post and hear it from the Tory Chair 's own mouth.

https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/gary-lineker-vs-bbc.278041/reply?quote=4953377

 

Or maybe this Twitter link.. in which this character admits what I have been saying above. Total cynicism and utterly amoral.