Taipan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 9:32 pm
I agree with Screwd here. He aligned the current Govt with the Nazi regime. Just because he didn't say the N word, can anyone really deny the implication? That's hate speech, end of.
But it isn’t hate speech. It’s the direct opposite of hate speech- it’s calling out an egregious plan that will serve only to offer less support to those most vulnerable.
There has to be a line. ‘Stop the boats’?! The sideshow that is unfolding now is not a distraction from the government using language that is not unfamiliar with that used in Germany in the 1930- it’s a consequence of it.
Germany produced a satirical clip a while ago ( I’ll see if I can find it) which parodies those rolling around claiming morale injury when someone draws parallels with Nazism - and how they are often worse people than those they are claiming offence against. It’s to encourage calling out on fascism. Of authoritarianism.
I have no issue what so ever with the parallels being cited between illegal migrant policy and the darkest parts of history.
Horse wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 9:26 pm
You could have checked, you didn't. It took moments. Yet you spend ages explaining how we've all been hoodwinked.
Checked what exactly? What the fuck are you on about? He said what he said, I paraphrase it and because I did not "bother" to quote him verbatim, somehow you suggest he didn't say that at all?
What planet are you on? You're just chipping away at thin air, grasping at a straw that isn't there.
Horse wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 9:26 pm
You could have checked, you didn't. It took moments. Yet you spend ages explaining how we've all been hoodwinked.
Checked what exactly? What the fuck are you on about? He said what he said, I paraphrase it and because I did not "bother" to quote him verbatim, somehow you suggest he didn't say that at all?
What planet are you on? You're just chipping away at thin air, grasping at a straw that isn't there.
You're not allowed to paraphrase people which the left love sucking the cock off.
Only the left can paraphrase, as they have done with Trump and Boris, whilst they pull down statues and scream at the top of their voice how life has done them a hard turn, as they munch on their cous cous and pomegranate salad.
The term ‘hate crime’ can be used to describe a range of criminal behaviour carried out by one or
more perpetrators, such as verbal abuse, intimidation, threats, harassment, assault and bullying, as
well as damage to property.
Docca wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 9:55 pm
But it isn’t hate speech. It’s the direct opposite of hate speech- it’s calling out an egregious plan that will serve only to offer less support to those most vulnerable.
There has to be a line. ‘Stop the boats’?! The sideshow that is unfolding now is not a distraction from the government using language that is not unfamiliar with that used in Germany in the 1930- it’s a consequence of it.
Germany produced a satirical clip a while ago ( I’ll see if I can find it) which parodies those rolling around claiming morale injury when someone draws parallels with Nazism - and how they are often worse people than those they are claiming offence against. It’s to encourage calling out on fascism. Of authoritarianism.
I have no issue what so ever with the parallels being cited between illegal migrant policy and the darkest parts of history.
Hitler created a totalitarian regime, rounded up millions of people and murdered them in an industrial process on racial grounds.
You are saying that stopping illegally trafficked economic migrants, being shipped over from France by criminal gangs is somehow in "parallel" with that?
FFS. Just stop and think for a microsecond how ridiculous your statement is, let alone how insulting to compare the two scenarios.
Lineker didn't but then he's an attention seeking, leftist idiot.
Horse wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 9:26 pm
You could have checked, you didn't. It took moments. Yet you spend ages explaining how we've all been hoodwinked.
Checked what exactly? What the fuck are you on about? He said what he said, I paraphrase it and because I did not "bother" to quote him verbatim, somehow you suggest he didn't say that at all?
What planet are you on? You're just chipping away at thin air, grasping at a straw that isn't there.
You're not allowed to paraphrase people which the left love sucking the cock off.
Talking of which, you never posted promised pics of your stonking erection in front of the supermarket [meat and two] veg aisle. Such a tease, such a disappointment.
Checked what exactly? What the fuck are you on about? He said what he said, I paraphrase it and because I did not "bother" to quote him verbatim, somehow you suggest he didn't say that at all?
What planet are you on? You're just chipping away at thin air, grasping at a straw that isn't there.
You're not allowed to paraphrase people which the left love sucking the cock off.
Talking of which, you never posted promised pics of your stonking erection in front of the supermarket [meat and two] veg aisle. Such a tease, such a disappointment.
There's still time.....cock and two tomatoes......
You're not allowed to paraphrase people which the left love sucking the cock off.
Talking of which, you never posted promised pics of your stonking erection in front of the supermarket [meat and two] veg aisle. Such a tease, such a disappointment.
There's still time.....cock and two tomatoes......
In case of any doubt, it's not the pictures but the court reports that I want to see
PS Tomatoes? Cherry or beef? Depending on colour, do you need ointment of some sort?
Talking of which, you never posted promised pics of your stonking erection in front of the supermarket [meat and two] veg aisle. Such a tease, such a disappointment.
There's still time.....cock and two tomatoes......
In case of any doubt, it's not the pictures but the court reports that I want to see
PS Tomatoes? Cherry or beef? Depending on colour, do you need ointment of some sort?
Well a beef tomato is a rather pleasant one for hanging ones length across, where as cherry ones are fantastic for performing docking actions with.
Surely the point is that BBC presenters are constrained by their contract to avoid saying overtly contentious political stuff. In the same way that a senior manager for say Barclays would get the sack if he went on Twitter and rubbished the clearing banks.
Yes, you can have free speech, but there may be consequences.
Cousin Jack wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 10:53 pm
Surely the point is that BBC presenters are constrained by their contract to avoid saying overtly contentious political stuff. In the same way that a senior manager for say Barclays would get the sack if he went on Twitter and rubbished the clearing banks.
Yes, you can have free speech, but there may be consequences.
Quite.
And he still has the pleasure of free speech, he has his twitter page where he can continue to trick people into believing free speech trumps his duties to friends, colleagues, neighbours and most especially his employers. He can sit there shaking like a dog shitting razor blades, whilst living the life of a champagne socialist, the plastic lefty. He just needs to remember to drink that pint of vinegar before getting back onto social media.
Cousin Jack wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 10:53 pm
Surely the point is that BBC presenters are constrained by their contract to avoid saying overtly contentious political stuff. In the same way that a senior manager for say Barclays would get the sack if he went on Twitter and rubbished the clearing banks.
Yes, you can have free speech, but there may be consequences.
I fell foul of a similar scenario once many years ago while I was still working at the BBC. I was invited to appear on Chris Evans The Big Breakfast thing. They wanted me on it because I'd just set a new speeding record on the old FireBlade and I had already made some pretty daft comments on the local TV.
I asked my boss, he asked his boss and I was told yes by all means but if you say anything that brings the BBC into disrepute, don't come back...
Cousin Jack wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 10:53 pm
Surely the point is that BBC presenters are constrained by their contract to avoid saying overtly contentious political stuff. In the same way that a senior manager for say Barclays would get the sack if he went on Twitter and rubbished the clearing banks.
Yes, you can have free speech, but there may be consequences.
I've only seen a statement from the BBC that "The BBC said it considered Lineker's "recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines"."
From a quick search, I can't find anything about personal views that are not part of editorial control etc.
Any idea what/how he breached them? And guidelines are not rules. But biting the hand that feeds is not to be taken lightly.
Cousin Jack wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 10:53 pm
Surely the point is that BBC presenters are constrained by their contract to avoid saying overtly contentious political stuff. In the same way that a senior manager for say Barclays would get the sack if he went on Twitter and rubbished the clearing banks.
Yes, you can have free speech, but there may be consequences.
My mate works for the beeb. In his official capacity as an occasional reporter (i.e. speaking as @BBC_ScoopMcQueen on whatever medium he's reporting on) obviously he has to be careful not to be contentious or offer anything that is other than impartial. Yes really.
But when he speaks as himself, @TheRealScoopMcQueen, he can say what he fecking likes making it clear that his opinion should not be conflated with BBC opinion. It's not difficult to understand the difference, unless you're a bit thick or want to cause a kerfuffle.
However, good on Lineker for standing up for what is right and calling out cruel policy and sticking to his guns. Free speech should be exactly that. This is a cowardly action from the beeb, Their policy of fair handedness led them to have Farage on QT every week for years, now suddenly they want to start censorship?
Seems strange that the beeb suddenly get a conscience about what is or isn't politically contraversial. I'd be fine with Jim Davidson on the telly spouting his nonsense, keep him out in the open where we can see him, rather than all bitter and twisted in the world of his little insidious podcast. If that's what it takes so that the redcheeked Tory its-not-fair crowd don't feel the need to start clawing away at the likes of Lineker ....
