BBC. (1 Viewer)

[Skybluefaz]

Under EU law (a treaty we are still bound by) anyone seeking asylum should do so at the first safe haven they come to

Nah,

Do refugees have to stay in the first safe country they reach? - Full Fact

Refugees are not required to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. But under EU law they can sometimes be returned to the first safe EU country they reached.

fullfact.org

 

---

[fatso]

How are we still abiding to an EU law? Explain

Because we remain signatories to it.
We may say that we have taken back control of our borders, but the reality is different.

 

[Jamesimus]

While there is some truth about immigration being seen as the Tories trump card, (their only one) its also not about anyone living next door to a foreigner, that just debases the issue to one of racism, which it is not.

We have numerous services that are under funded, NHS, Schools, councils, roads, etc etc, and just allowing free movement, unchecked of people into a country (any country) just continues the cost to the treasury of funding those services.

The overriding question is, if these people are in genuine fear of their lives, why didn't they plead asylum in France?

Under EU law (a treaty we are still bound by) anyone seeking asylum should do so at the first safe haven they come to. That way their numbers are allocated to member countries as per previous existing agreements.

People seeking assylum don't get to choose which country they fancy living in.

The UK’s withdrawal from the EU also withdrew us from the Dublin Convention, which allows EU member states to relocate people seeking asylum to the first EU country where they were registered.

Worth pointing out also that they may have family or friends already here, feel they can integrate better here, speak English (hello colonial past!), have better work prospects, have their asylum claim processed more efficiently (that last ones a joke, no chance of that)

 

[clint van damme]

Because we remain signatories to it.
We may say that we have taken back control of our borders, but the reality is different.

This isn't true.
And the EU law we are or were signed to didn't stipulate that anyway.
There is a caveat tht an asylum seeker can be returned to the first safe country. But they don't have to declare there.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Lineker should just stick to football the overpaid, big eared Leicester prick. No one wants to hear his personal political views. He should keep them to his friends and family and like minded people.

His personal political views were on Twitter, only people who want to follow him or search for his tweets need to see them.

Though didn't notice any outrage when he tweeted " Bin Corbyn " or congratulations to Boris Johnson on winning the last election.

Nobody snowflakes like a right- wing snowflakes.

 

[PVA]

Under EU law (a treaty we are still bound by) anyone seeking asylum should do so at the first safe haven they come to.

Wrong on both counts.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

The UK’s withdrawal from the EU also withdrew us from the Dublin Convention, which allows EU member states to relocate people seeking asylum to the first EU country where they were registered.

Worth pointing out also that they may have family or friends already here, feel they can integrate better here, speak English (hello colonial past!), have better work prospects, have their asylum claim processed more efficiently (that last ones a joke, no chance of that)

Up until recently, I'd have also been proud to say it was because we were a relatively tolerant, compassionate, caring country that sought to help those in desperate need...

 

[rob9872]

4 pages to have a go at Tories, there's a long thread already for that.

Lineker is a jug eared Incester twat who hates Cov and is massively overpaid from our licence fee, so if this gets rid of him I don't mind whether the reason for doing so is just or not.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

4 pages to have a go at Tories, there's a long thread already for that.

Well I'll restrict myself to having a go at a policy that aims to criminilise victims of torture, rape, abuse, systemic violence etc...

 

[fatso]

This isn't true.
And the EU law we are or were signed to didn't stipulate that anyway.
There is a caveat tht an asylum seeker can be returned to the first safe country. But they don't have to declare there.

I stand corrected, after reading through the treaty it appears they can be returned to the first safe haven. (As you said)

 

[fernandopartridge]

Because we remain signatories to it.
We may say that we have taken back control of our borders, but the reality is different.

Nonsense

 

[fatso]

Nonsense

It's UN not EU
The whole thing is confusing to an old fucker.

Rishi Sunak ‘extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in UK’

UNHCR ‘profoundly concerned’ by bill that would allow government to criminalise, detain and deport asylum seekers

www.theguardian.com

 

[ms639]

No - I tend to use ms639 as one

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ccfctommy]

Lineker: it’s ok to use your platform to air your views, claim you were racially abused because you had slightly darker skin whilst growing up in Leicester (?!?), calling USA a racist country (he’s fronting the BBC, a U.K. public institution, not a private network and the USA are our allies) and now this Nazi Germany thing that we are Nazis for stopping the boats.

Ok.

Fair enough. Still went to Qatar though and took the money. Mr virtuous.

The double standards brigade are out in force. He’s allowed his views and all that. Not everyone agrees with him.

Matt Le Tissier? Airs his views, cancelled. Rightly. It’s the BBC. Be impartial.

I’m not saying I agree with Le Tissier, but I don’t think our “impartial” public broadcaster should support a front man who insists on making impartial political statements.

He tweeted 'Bin Corbyn' a few years ago. Where was the impartially then?

 

[SkyBlueMatt]

While there is some truth about immigration being seen as the Tories trump card, (their only one) its also not about anyone living next door to a foreigner, that just debases the issue to one of racism, which it is not.

We have numerous services that are under funded, NHS, Schools, councils, roads, etc etc, and just allowing free movement, unchecked of people into a country (any country) just continues the cost to the treasury of funding those services.

The overriding question is, if these people are in genuine fear of their lives, why didn't they plead asylum in France?

Under EU law (a treaty we are still bound by) anyone seeking asylum should do so at the first safe haven they come to. That way their numbers are allocated to member countries as per previous existing agreements.

People seeking assylum don't get to choose which country they fancy living in.

We're kind of proving my point. Just because I think what the current government is doing regarding immigration is wrong. Doesnt mean there isn't a discussion to be had on immigration. I think the current policy along with the rhetoric used is the problem.

Again you're trying to blame immigration for our problems, 12 years of Tory rule is to blame for the state of the NHS, Brexit, Cost of Living Crisis.

It's an easy target.

And in regards to you point regarding why don't they just stay in France.



Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk

 

[fatso]

We're kind of proving my point. Just because I think what the current government is doing regarding immigration is wrong. Doesnt mean there isn't a discussion to be had on immigration. I think the current policy along with the rhetoric used is the problem.

Again you're trying to blame immigration for our problems, 12 years of Tory rule is to blame for the state of the NHS, Brexit, Cost of Living Crisis.

It's an easy target.

And in regards to you point regarding why don't they just stay in France.



Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk

There's no doubting that inept government and miss management have placed the NHS in a dire position, but demand has also increased beyond its capacity. Unchecked immigration is a key factor, as is the demographic of an ageing population.

Advances in medical procedures, and developing drug technologies also adds pressure with more expensive procedures, more expensive drugs and the ability to keep patients alive longer at increasing cost.

The general public bulks at higher taxation, but the demand, (and hence costs) only keep growing.

So, (in short) there are a huge number of factors involved. Choosing to ignore one by pointing at another isn't the answer. The government will change in 18 months, but the NHS won't suddenly recover under a new political party.
In fact whoever is in office it's only going to get worse.

 

[Cov kid 55]

Lineker: it’s ok to use your platform to air your views, claim you were racially abused because you had slightly darker skin whilst growing up in Leicester (?!?), calling USA a racist country (he’s fronting the BBC, a U.K. public institution, not a private network and the USA are our allies) and now this Nazi Germany thing that we are Nazis for stopping the boats.

Ok.

Fair enough. Still went to Qatar though and took the money. Mr virtuous.

The double standards brigade are out in force. He’s allowed his views and all that. Not everyone agrees with him.

Matt Le Tissier? Airs his views, cancelled. Rightly. It’s the BBC. Be impartial.

I’m not saying I agree with Le Tissier, but I don’t think our “impartial” public broadcaster should support a front man who insists on making impartial political statements.

The problem is the lack of consistency. Sugar, who is arguably a higher profile than Lineker, and who fronts a prime time BBC programme, can tweet anti Labour sentiments without any comment, and who posted a photograph of a superimposed Corbyn sitting in a car next to Hitler. Whether you agree with Lineker’s comments or not, he’s being treated differently by a BBC, with a Conservative supporting Chairman, and a Director General who stood as a Conservative candidate in local elections. The BBC are in a godawful mess over this.

 

[Grendel]

The problem is the lack of consistency. Sugar, who is arguably a higher profile than Lineker, and who fronts a prime time BBC programme, can tweet anti Labour sentiments without any comment, and who posted a photograph of a superimposed Corbyn sitting in a car next to Hitler. Whether you agree with Lineker’s comments or not, he’s being treated differently by a BBC, with a Conservative supporting Chairman, and a Director General who stood as a Conservative candidate in local elections. The BBC are in a godawful mess over this.

The Apprentice is not a BBC programme as such

You do I assume realise he was given HOL status as he was a labour member and a Blair Brown crony

Sugar has only ever been a member of one political party

 

[Cov kid 55]

Why is it people don’t realise that the Nazi’s didn’t get in and go straight to genocide and invasion of other countries. It started with language and raising paranoia and hysteria. It was six years before WW2 started and the extermination camps didn’t start until 1942. The language was around for six years, six years of brainwashing, six years of conditioning, six years of desensitising and legitimising a mind set before the Nazis had the fully compliant country they wanted. It seems our country isn’t as naive as the German population was after WW1 to think that hatred is an answer.

This exactly. There would probably have been a process which started with disinformation, and scare tactics, probably similar to Braverman’s ‘there are hundreds of millions refugees, and they’re all coming here.’ I don’t think anyone is saying we’re on the same road as Nazi Germany, but certainly the language of some politicians is divisive and unhelpful.

 

[dadgad]

His personal political views were on Twitter, only people who want to follow him or search for his tweets need to see them.

Though didn't notice any outrage when he tweeted " Bin Corbyn " or congratulations to Boris Johnson on winning the last election.

Nobody snowflakes like a right- wing snowflakes.

This is true. And by saying ‘bin Corbyn’ he and other snowflakes are now complaining about the consequences of that rejection.
Lineker however should be allowed an opinion and to express them. The bbc - by complaining - has shown itself to be v partial to an absurdly regressive right wing govt. It needs to cull its fascistic sympathies and rediscover objectivity.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

There's no doubting that inept government and miss management have placed the NHS in a dire position, but demand has also increased beyond its capacity. Unchecked immigration is a key factor, as is the demographic of an ageing population.

Advances in medical procedures, and developing drug technologies also adds pressure with more expensive procedures, more expensive drugs and the ability to keep patients alive longer at increasing cost.

The general public bulks at higher taxation, but the demand, (and hence costs) only keep growing.

So, (in short) there are a huge number of factors involved. Choosing to ignore one by pointing at another isn't the answer. The government will change in 18 months, but the NHS won't suddenly recover under a new political party.
In fact whoever is in office it's only going to get worse.

The public bulks at taxation because it’s disproportionately applied. There’s no magic money tree for the NHS but Theresa May found 1 billion to get the DUPs backing, bankers bonuses have been uncapped, too rate tax was abolished, and tax loopholes aren’t closed meaning the country loses 70 billion in tax.

the government claim they’ve put in more money than ever, but it still is a real terms cut based on inflation. Is there ineficiency in the NHS? Yes - but it’s not helped by the criminal underfunding over the last 12 years.

 

[Grendel]

This exactly. There would probably have been a process which started with disinformation, and scare tactics, probably similar to Braverman’s ‘there are hundreds of millions refugees, and they’re all coming here.’ I don’t think anyone is saying we’re on the same road as Nazi Germany, but certainly the language of some politicians is divisive and unhelpful.

Unfortunately Tony and yourself are showing that his post is indeed a reference to Nazi Germany an an apparent warning of what’s next

 

[Grendel]

Oh and for the record I thought sugars reference to Hitler and the image was also wrong. References to that period and todays democratic uk system are ridiculous and offensive in equal measure

 

[dadgad]

The Apprentice is not a BBC programme as such

You do I assume realise he was given HOL status as he was a labour member and a Blair Brown crony

Sugar has only ever been a member of one political party

Ridiculous. Sugar is no socialist. Labour peerages are two a penny if you’re pro establishment. Look at Starmer’s recent appointees for evidence.

 

[Cov kid 55]

The Apprentice is not a BBC programme as such

You do I assume realise he was given HOL status as he was a labour member and a Blair Brown crony

Sugar has only ever been a member of one political party

Saying it’s not a BBC programme is semantics, and yes, he was originally a Labour peer, but has been an independent Lord since 2015. The relevant point is not his politics, but the inconsistency of allowing personal tweets by many BBC employees/freelancers, but making an example of Lineker.

 

[Grendel]

Ridiculous. Sugar is no socialist. Labour peerages are two a penny if you’re pro establishment. Look at Starmer’s recent appointees for evidence.

He was a Labour Party member and elected by Gordon Brown. I mean if you want socialism dig out Michael Foot - I suspect his views on immigration are far more aligned with Braverman than yours

 

[Grendel]

Saying it’s not a BBC programme is semantics, and yes, he was originally a Labour peer, but has been an independent Lord since 2015. The relevant point is not his politics, but the inconsistency of allowing personal tweets by many BBC employees/freelancers, but making an example of Lineker.

he isn’t in any shape or form paid by the BBC but anyway I’d have cancelled his programme from the channel as well

 

[dadgad]

More Rubbish. Foot was a Quaker.

 

[Grendel]

More Rubbish. Foot was a Quaker.

He was best friends with Enoch powell

He despised the EU even then and campaigned to leave it

keep up

 

[Cov kid 55]

Unfortunately Tony and yourself are showing that his post is indeed a reference to Nazi Germany an an apparent warning of what’s next

Perhaps important to read posts carefully?

 

[skybluetony176]

Unfortunately Tony and yourself are showing that his post is indeed a reference to Nazi Germany an an apparent warning of what’s next

It’s a warning of the direction of travel. The further right we go the worse it gets and there’s no mistaking that we are moving further and further right. The ideology of the Conservative Party today is unrecognisable from the Conservative Party that first got into power in 2010 or indeed 2015. The more lost they’ve got the more lost the country has gotten with them.

How far right do they have to go before you become uncomfortable? Do you really want to let them get there before you say they’ve gone too far for you? Or do you recognise the direction of travel now and speak up now to at least put the hand brake on? Maybe you’re happy with the direction of travel, you certainly don’t seem to be complaining about it and are quite happy to excuse it. But the opinion polls suggest that you’re in a minority and the response from the wider public to the response of the BBC to Linakers tweet also suggests that you’re in a minority. Even Sunak recognises that by throwing the BBC under the bus last night with his panicked statement.

 

[Grendel]

Perhaps important to read posts carefully?

Oh I read it very carefully - the funny thing is Garry - the great historian - could have mentioned Russia in the 1930s I guess but chose not to - can’t think why

Are you that moron who humiliates himself on drunken wasps every now and again sucking up to that lot?

 

[Grendel]

It’s a warning of the direction of travel. The further right we go the worse it gets and there’s no mistaking that we are moving further and further right. The ideology of the Conservative Party today is unrecognisable from the Conservative Party that first got into power in 2010 or indeed 2015. The more lost they’ve got the more lost the country has gotten with them.

How far right do they have to go before you become uncomfortable? Do you really want to let them get there before you say they’ve gone too far for you? Or do you recognise the direction of travel now and speak up now to at least put the hand brake on? Maybe you’re happy with the direction of travel, you certainly don’t seem to be complaining about it and are quite happy to excuse it. But the opinion polls suggest that you’re in a minority and the response from the wider public to the response of the BBC Linakers tweet also suggests that you’re in a minority. Even Sunak recognises that by throwing the BBC under the bus last night with his panicked statement.

Tony I can’t be bothered to read your drivel as you were proud to vote for an anti immigration party and got very angry when they were accused of being racist

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Most people that are speaking up about this are complete hypocrites, including a lot on this thread. It's selective outrage at best. Wouldn't hear a pip about fighting for free speech, or against cancellation. As soon as someone has your viewpoint though - all over it. Why else has it suddenly become an issue? I've been asking for days on the other threads and it is met with crickets.

For the record, I think he should be allowed to speak his mind, but there is so much hypocrisy going on it's funny. Where the fuck were you for the last few years? It's either free speech for all, or it isn't. Same applies to the people trying to cancel Lineker.

I don't think the tory policy is necessarily the right move, but there needs to be a sensible and adult discussion regarding immigration. Genuine refugees should be supported, but many of those in the centre of this discussion are not. That's what's wound up a lot of people over the years, and it's lowered sentiment and sympathy for those that do genuinely need help. The argument seems to be open borders or racist, however, which is one of the reasons why so many of those found screaming about this have been consistently on the losing side of elections/referendums in recent times.

Some of you need to give yourselves a shake.

 

[The Philosopher]

The BBC now have a bigger problem if they back down. The tail is wagging the dog.

He’s a football pundit.

The BBC is not a commercial enterprise so viewing figures that in all other TV drives advertising revenue are irrelevant.

Give him a slot on question time and get Alex Scott and / or a team of diverse pundits to front Match of the Day.

Letting Lineker call the shots for a public broadcaster paid by licence fee will have repercussions.

Times are hard, TV licence non payment will go up as people struggle with their energy bills.

You can go to prison should you willfully not pay a fine for not having a TV license (technically).

He may win this battle, but he will lose the campaign.

Watch the next few weeks: the hardliners will repeat his salary over and over in the media and whip up public opinion against him. They will link his salary and highlight pensioners struggling with TV license and link heating bills.

Those like Shearer who are supporting him now will be shuffled off too. He’s got too big for his boots has Gary. Clarkson thought he could do and say as he pleased. Lineker will follow a similar path and end up at BT Sport or similar.

That’d be my prediction.