Wright Steps Back in Solidarity with Jug Ears

[Omegstrat6]

Interesting article by a Jewish writer/historian ( in the Independent I think?) who says that, despite his clumsy reference to Nazi Germany, there is some merit to Lineker's comments. The argument made does, of course, only hold with those illegals fleeing persecution and not economic migrants or criminal elements but whilst the percentage of those illegals who fall into this category has certainly fallen considerably in the more recent wake of Albanian young men, they do still exist and in some number.

The writer points out that, of course, Hitler was dealing with existing populations of Jews, Romani etc within Germany itself and not Jewish or Romani immigrants wanting to get into the country, so a big difference there for a start. But, he says, had Lineker made his comparison to Britain's attitude towards Jewish refugees wanting to flee Nazi Germany in the 1930s then he would have been pretty much on the mark.

The truth of our histories can be pretty unpalatable but Britain in the 1930s was far more racist and anti-Semetic than it is today with theories such as Eugenics being widely accepted by many (Inc Churchill and Marie Stopes). Whilst not quite as dire as the Great Depression in America, Britain still experienced great financial hardships with General strikes and a great gulf between the rich and poor (ring any bells?). Hitler was, in fact, much admired by many for starting to turn the German economy around whilst the easy option of blaming immigrants for financial woes was stirred up by the Right Wing. The Daily Mail was not alone in supporting Mosely as the Mirror also urged support. We read about Cable Street, but the reality was that many working class people were sucked into racism and anti-Semitism.

Ultimately, Britain did begin to start to take Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis, but it resisted doing so for a long time during the 1930s and the arguments and rhetoric for doing so were not so dis-similar to today's against the Channel boat people.

I'm certainly not saying that the growing tide of illegal immigration is not a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, nor denying that the majority are now economic migrants and that many have criminal links. Just pointing out that there are some uncomfortable truths in what Lineker was trying to say in his criticisms of Braverman's policy.

[Leicesterbaggie]

While accepting some of your points Omegstrat, it doesn’t alter Lineker’s hypocrisy or his comparison of the horrors of the holocaust to our attempts to stop illegal immigrants, and as you say, economic immigrants, who are mostly young men.

[baggieal]

Interesting article by a Jewish writer/historian ( in the Independent I think?) who says that, despite his clumsy reference to Nazi Germany, there is some merit to Lineker's comments. The argument made does, of course, only hold with those illegals fleeing persecution and not economic migrants or criminal elements but whilst the percentage of those illegals who fall into this category has certainly fallen considerably in the more recent wake of Albanian young men, they do still exist and in some number.

The writer points out that, of course, Hitler was dealing with existing populations of Jews, Romani etc within Germany itself and not Jewish or Romani immigrants wanting to get into the country, so a big difference there for a start. But, he says, had Lineker made his comparison to Britain's attitude towards Jewish refugees wanting to flee Nazi Germany in the 1930s then he would have been pretty much on the mark.

The truth of our histories can be pretty unpalatable but Britain in the 1930s was far more racist and anti-Semetic than it is today with theories such as Eugenics being widely accepted by many (Inc Churchill and Marie Stopes). Whilst not quite as dire as the Great Depression in America, Britain still experienced great financial hardships with General strikes and a great gulf between the rich and poor (ring any bells?). Hitler was, in fact, much admired by many for starting to turn the German economy around whilst the easy option of blaming immigrants for financial woes was stirred up by the Right Wing. The Daily Mail was not alone in supporting Mosely as the Mirror also urged support. We read about Cable Street, but the reality was that many working class people were sucked into racism and anti-Semitism.

Ultimately, Britain did begin to start to take Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis, but it resisted doing so for a long time during the 1930s and the arguments and rhetoric for doing so were not so dis-similar to today's against the Channel boat people.

I'm certainly not saying that the growing tide of illegal immigration is not a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, nor denying that the majority are now economic migrants and that many have criminal links. Just pointing out that there are some uncomfortable truths in what Lineker was trying to say in his criticisms of Braverman's policy.

For me it was not just the reference but the fact the majority of sensible people want illegal immigration stopping. Lineker does not have to live next to these illegal immigrants where feelings are running high. We should remember many of our own folk can’t afford to feed their kids.

When Lineker was spouting on about human rights in Qatar - why didn’t he refuse to cover it? Why did he not donate all the millions from his Qatari pay check to those he claims are being persecuted?

Just another of life’s hypocrites in my book and a greedy w anker!

[Omegstrat6]

Totally agree that any comparison of Braverman's policy to the Holocaust itself is both factually incorrect and our of order. Similarly, agree that whilst Mr Lineker has housed a few immigrants himself, these have undoubtedly been vetted first and Rasheed the law student makes a far more comfortable house guest than a potentially gang-affiliated young Albanian!. Hats off to him for his generosity towards Rasheed but it has to be put into context.

Linker did, of course, at least speak out against the situation in Qatar but did not go s o far as to put his principles before money and still commentated on the WC. Whether or not he donated his fee or proportion of it to human rights charities in the region I don't know. Others have -IMHO and based purely on the principle of free speech-rightly "come out" in support of his stance but whilst it is the BBC who have made the move against him, Lineker did at least stick to what he believed in refusing to back down and was aware of the consequences of this. Of course, with his wealth and the fact that others would doubtless be lining up with alternative lucrative job offers, those consequences are hardly going to be that difficult for him to deal with!

Is he a hypocrite? Certainly don't think he lives in the "real world" but given his wealth that is probably pretty inevitable. This means he lives a pretty insulated life and so may (does!) not understand or appreciate the problems that others face or their genuine concerns over immigration. A bit of historical fact checking wouldn't have gone amiss either before posting! But, underneath all that, I still think he has a right to criticise Braverman's policy and being out of touch and clumsy (to put it politely) does not, for me, necessarily make him hypocritical. Personally, reading the aims of the policy, I don't disagree with it, but some of the methodology I do think bears criticism and whether it is even workable is debateable .

[Omegstrat6]

Seems like Lineker will now return as will MOTD in its usual format. In the meantime Tim Davie has promised a (long overdue) review of the BBCs impartiality policy to ensure greater clarity. Think the head of the BBC got this horribly wrong and this should -and could- have been resolved behind closed doors. The whole thing probably hasn't helped either side but I guess any more open debate on freedom of speech should be welcomed, especially in this age where the question of censorship is so prevalent.

The whole furore also shows the power of "click bait". Lineker has taken a lot of flak for comparing Braverman's policy to the Holocaust (something Braverman herself accused him of). Lineker, in fact, did not mention the Holocaust at all but rather likened the language used by many who support the policy to that used in 1930s Germany-and there is more than a grain of truth in that. We all know, of course, that what began to happen in the 30s in Nazi Germany escalated into the Final Solution being implemented in the 1940s, but Lineker was not referring to that. Splitting hairs? Maybe, but there is a difference and the devil is in the detail. Surely knowing himself that what happened in the 30s led to the Holocaust, Lineker's comparison was ill-judged at best but does anyone seriously think that Gary Lineker would really compare the new policy to the heinous genocide of the Holocaust?

Still, as some wag commented, now back to the real arguments on MOTD-VAR!😁

[kettering_baggie]

I was hoping that we had seen the last of him and the overpaid pundits, none of them worth listening to. Lineker is a smug individual who appears to think that he is a law unto himself. The BBC should be impartial and to expect that one of its most high profile presenters to be able to voice political views is incompatible with impartiality.

[Omegstrat6]

Tbh, I didn't used to mind Lineker too much as he always come across as being quite avuncular which is an attribute most successful British tv presenters seem to have needed (think Terry Wogan). But can't disagree that he -like Wogan-could also come across as increasingly smug.

Also dislike the current vogue of punditry as far too many may have been decent players in their day but struggle to either put their thoughts in order before they speak or else resort to uttering inanities. Oh for the days of Des Lynam, Jimmy Hill, David Coleman etc eh?

Think our own AJ could be a good shout though! 😀

[regis80]

I was hoping that we had seen the last of him and the overpaid pundits, none of them worth listening to. Lineker is a smug individual who appears to think that he is a law unto himself. The BBC should be impartial and to expect that one of its most high profile presenters to be able to voice political views is incompatible with impartiality.

Yes but, would you say other last and current presenters have been impartial? Andrew Neil writing for the right wing spectator, Sugar giving his views, Fiona Bruce? If the answers no then why are we fixated on Lineker?

[Dubbag]

I always liked him in his playing day and liked his attitude. Was not a watcher of MOTD when he took over but by all accounts when I have seen him on international games, I always liked his comments.
Each to their own I guess.

[Lindenbaggie]

I was hoping that we had seen the last of him and the overpaid pundits, none of them worth listening to. Lineker is a smug individual who appears to think that he is a law unto himself. The BBC should be impartial and to expect that one of its most high profile presenters to be able to voice political views is incompatible with impartiality.

I stopped watching Countryfile because of the BBC's attitude towards Brexit. The BBC continually made it clear where they stood on this issue through this programme, and I understand they still do.