Forum Topic

It's a tricky one.  The BBC has been criticized for years for being left wing - with millions of others deeming it right wing. Recently they screened a documentary about Shamima Begum (I didn't watch it) which some said painted the BBC as being ultra-woke and trying to rebrand a terrorist. But are the positions of Lineker and Attenborough different?  Attenborough has made a programme, which will, as always with him, fascinating, starting on Sunday evening, about British wildlife, at least partially with BBC financial backing,  with visual evidence about the destruction of the natural world in the UK. The evidence is incontrovertible as I understand it. There is most definitely scientific evidence that Britain has one of the greatest rates of destruction of wildlife over the past century in the entire world. Now, I don't know how much Attenborough laid the blame at the door of Tory supporters,as the series hasn't screened yet and they are only going to show the final programme which apparently at least comes near to blame on Iplayer  (think water company pollution of our rivers etc) -  it may be he (almost certainly correctly) did.  But then look at the terrible pollution from airports supported by Labour councils such as Hounslow.  Lineker has tweeted his views about a very controversial issue - migration - which is one that it is very difficult for the public to really understand as we just don't  know what is happening.  Why is there such a migration problem here?  There are many different views, including those who don't have an issue about taxpayers spending billions on keeping people who crossed the channel in small boats in hotels, and those that do.  Thoughts?

Claire Moran ● 1289d

What is it with these footballers, thinking that it is not right to let children go hungry, and now that refugees should be treated humanely?  Surely they should leave all that up to the government. Let’s look at exactly Lineker said:“There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries.  This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?”He did not mention the Nazis or the holocaust (specifically).  I think his reference to “language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s” was very pointed.  The Nazi extermination camps were not introduced until 1941 / 1942. But it was the language used before that that paved the way.  Lineker was warning us of where the use of dehumanising language can lead.  Language by Braverman such as:“There are 100 million people displaced around the world, and likely billions more eager to come here if possible.”“The British people deserve to know which party is serious about stopping the invasion on our Southern Coast”. “….  an activist blob of left-wing lawyers, civil servants and the Labour party”.So he was not entirely wrong by making the comparison with the language used in Germany in the Nazis’ early years in power, looking to dehumanise some sectors of the population and to demonise others.In the year to September 2022 the UK granted  asylum to 15,987 refugees.  In the year to September 2021 Germany granted asylum to 127,730, and France 96,510.  So it looks like Lineker was also right when he said “We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries.”  I have heard Tory ministers (including Sunak) saying ad nauseum that stopping the so called small boards is a “priority of the British people”.  None of the evidence supports that.  I suspect that the governments’ propaganda campaign to try to move this up the agenda is far more about the fact that they are facing a near total wipe out at the next election.  They need to keep hold of a few of the “red wall” seats, and recognise that some of the vote that moved over to the Tories from Labour during the Brexit campaign will be lost to Reform.  All the noise about the “small boats”, and window dressing announcements of legislation is playing to that gallery.And remember: One of Reform’s policies is for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, which is a policy also supported by some on the right of the Tory party.  So how about this for a thought:The Tories could never get away with telling us, and the rest of the electorate, that “We will take away YOUR human rights by leaving the ECHR”.Far easier to say “We will take away THEIR human rights”, whilst pointing to refugees who they have spent the last few years dehumanising and demonising.Then all of our international law protections under the ECHR also vanish in a puff of smoke.  Protections such as:  the Right to Life (Article 2); Prohibition of torture (Article 3); Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4) Right to liberty and security  (Article 5) Right to a fair trial (Article 6) No punishment without law (Article 7) Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9) Freedom of expression  (Article 10) Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11 Right to marry (Article 12) Right to an effective remedy (Article 13)Prohibition of discrimination (on grounds such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status) (Article 14).Don't underestimate this government.  We have some deeply unpleasant and unprincipled people in high offices. First they came for the CommunistsAnd I did not speak outBecause I was not a CommunistThen they came for the SocialistsAnd I did not speak outBecause I was not a SocialistThen they came for the trade unionistsAnd I did not speak outBecause I was not a trade unionistThen they came for the JewsAnd I did not speak outBecause I was not a JewThen they came for meAnd there was no one leftTo speak out for meAll credit to Lineker (and others) for speaking out now, before it is too late to turn the tide. And all credit to the many people who have come out to support him, showing where the sentiments of "the British People" really lie.

T P Howell ● 1287d

Neither Alastair nor anyone else on here who sympathises with Lineker's sentiments is making excuses for him. The fact is that the supposed diminishment of the seriousness of the Holocaust is mostly a diversionary tactic of morally bankrupt Ministers and Conservative MPs who have rushed to misrepresent what Lineker tweeted (he made no reference to the Holocaust, but rather the use of language to stigmatise "the other"). In 2023 "the other" is refugees in boats, whereas in the 1930s, long before the Holocaust, it was not only Jews but also Black people, Roma, Poles, Gays and Jehovah's Witnesses. Some Jewish people may genuinely have been disturbed by Lineker's words (unnecessarily, in my opinion), but much of the criticism has come from Conservative MPs who like to plead their hitherto-undisclosed Jewish connections as a reason for taking offence. In this way they hope to deprive Lineker of the moral high ground. For a sensible appraisal of the import, and importance, of Lineker's words, I recommend the following tweet from Rachel Shabi, the British/Israeli journalist: "A key tenet of Holocaust education is never again, for anyone. The Holocaust is unique, but ‘never again’ is universal. Drawing out similarities and parallels is critical and part of the education.” We need to be equally on guard against language which "others" any group, be they Jews, Black people, Roma, Poles, Gays, Jehovah's Witnesses, genuine asylum seekers or plain illegal immigrants.

Robert Fish ● 1287d

None of this addresses the real issues, which include the facts that 1. Those who cross the channel were not in danger. France is not at war2. Most are young men3. Most have the money to pay many  thousands to get across the channel. They are not poor. What about those equally, and likely more deserving, who don't have the money to pay smugglers-  in particular women and children?  Why should those with money (almost certainly men - and it is majority of young men arriving -  given that women in the countries they largely come from have none because of some of the countries they come from have their appalling sexist - including wanting to kill women who want an education by gassing them -  attitudes) be preferred?We need a proper refugee system that assesses who should come here before they arrive.  Britain is an incredibly  generous country today.  In the past, my  father's extermely poor family was allowed to come  over from Ireland at the turn of the century.  They were given nothing, had to be extremely entrepreneurial  just to survive. No hotels, no pocket money, free food etc as migrants get today. His wife, my Mum, tried to get work but was discriminated against, even after she got her O and A levels at evening class.  She did manage to become a teacher against all the odds but not entitled to a pension in her own right in those days. Women born in the 1950s still suffer discrimination re their pension but government doesn't take this into account so a lot of women of that age are in really dire poverty, forced to choose between heating, eating or paying the rent. My UK born parents would have been amazingly grateful for what is provided in the social security system today. Their incredible hard work and focus on education, which they had not been able to have (my lovely Mum won a scholarship to a well respected local grammar school but her parents couldn't afford the mandatory school uniform so she couldn't go) a successful lifestyle for us, as far as they could, but the most prominent aspect of my childhood is one of worrying about money.This was in the North of England.  To those who represent the mmug of Chiswick, and think that we only need to think about people suffering overseas,  just stop being so naive and get real. I find TP extremme and wrong, so I no longer read his/her posts. We need to stand up for the deserving poor, not the relatively rich chancers.  TP thinks anyone wanting to come here for whatever reason including people who want to kill us should be welcomed with open arms. He and others of his views are very dangerous.  I and most of those who live here want to offer help to those from overseas who need it, even though our parents and indeed ourselves didn't get it.  But only to those who really need it - Britain currently accepts 75% of those who come in illegally as opposed to around 25% from France.  People coming on small boats - what if it became an ISIS fleet?  We wouldn't know  - are potentially a huge risk.

Claire Moran ● 1287d

Janice. I will explain my reasons.I could have just said that I agree with Lineker. But what would have been the point of that? That would have added nothing apart from a nice little Punch and Judy interaction. "Oh yes he did". "Oh no he didn't", which would have got us nowhere.  What does (or should) anyone care about my views, unless I explain the reasons?  What Lineker actually said has been badly misrepresented in order to make bad points.  So I thought it was important to look at what he actually said, and to form a view based on that.Personally, I find your presentation of jewish people as a homogeneous mass, all sharing the same political views and sensitivities, offensive and indeed perhaps a bit racist.  I also suspect that it is ex post facto, in that you decide what to believe first, and then look for an excuse to believe it.  I suspect that instead of being honest and saying "I don't like it when people criticise the party I support" you find another presense "Don't insult the Jews", knowing that the persecution of jewish people during the holocaust was an event barbaric beyond imagination. By connecting Lineker's tweet with the indefensible actions of the Nazi's, you therby seek to make the point he makes in his tweet indefensible. You try to borrow the suffering of a group of people to support you otherise weak arguments in support of immoral behaviour. That is what is really distasteful, and indeed offensive. So now I will ask you a question: Do you condone the language used by Braverman, such as "swamped", and "invasion", and that a billion people want to come to the UK?  That's the real point.And why I (or do I) post?  Two reasons:I do believe that this government is taking us to a dangerous place. That is exactly what Lineker's tweet was about.  It was obvious that many people had not gone back to the source of the controversy, to make their own decision.  I wanted to be a small voice to add to his warnings.And secondly, I am very interested in what other members of the forum think.  There are some very erudite people here, with interesting views and insights.And more than once, the views of others here have changed my own views or understanding of a situation.  I recommend you try this approach: i.e. consider the point someone is making before making up your mind whether you agree with something.

T P Howell ● 1286d

I just made the mistake of reading Claire Moran's post.The bit I liked best was:- "I find TP extreme and wrong, so I no longer read his/her posts."- "TP thinks anyone wanting to come here for whatever reason including people who want to kill us should be welcomed with open arms. He and others of his views are very dangerous."It’s quite a leap from “people wanting to come here” to “people who want to kill us”.  Do you have any evidence of this?  Or are you just the best illustration yet on this thread of why Braverman’s language is so dangerous, and the impact it can have on the impressionable? Claire, if you did actually read my posts, rather than rely on your obviously imperfect clairvoyant abilities to divine my views, you would find no basis whatsoever for concluding what you think I think.  Either that, or you are a liar and you do indeed read my posts, but are incapable (or unwilling) of understanding with points I was trying to make. Or perhaps your interpretation of the views of others is driven by the prejudices inherent in your own World View, regardless of what they actually say or think.  You do read my posts, but chose to close your mind to the points I make.  It is easier to pretend you ignore them, or dismiss them as "extreme" and "dangerous". But your opinions, uncorrupted by information (or indeed any compassion for anyone less fortunate than yourself) never fail to amuse (or dismay – I am not quite sure which – but let’s give you the benefit of the doubt, and stick with amuse).

T P Howell ● 1286d

What you forget is that the majority of migrants don't want to migrate.  Most are forced to by circumstances.  Most are actually living in next door countries as a result and it is a minority who choose to come here.  Many migrants want to return home when it is safe to do so.  When you don't hold to account or censure a country's authoritarian rulership and inhumane behaviour or stand up to them as can be done at the United Nations and don't take any action then the result can be that many of those citizens will just leave especially if and when they are bombed out of their homes and there are no longer any schools for their children to go to.  Ukraine may be the closest country that this has happened to but it is not the only one.We are NOT generally a soft country.  Many of our own citizens are badly treated here.  The 'negative press' is often owned by those who are taking the p..s who aren't paying and have been allowed to continue to not pay their fare share of tax.  It seems that laws are often made allowing too much movement of people between tax creating and tax collecting.  Many citizens have no choice but to pay PAYE and even then don't earn enough to live on. Having determined where a lot of the boats are being made and come from our Govt should be dealing with representatives from those countries to stop the trade. We don't take everyone that applies. The reason for our schools and hospitals and housing etc being in bad repair is as a direct result of lack of investment by a neoliberal Govt that does not want to invest in the state.   

Philippa Bond ● 1286d

Keith, what's the source data for your suggestion that the population equivalent of Plymouth (or even Worcester!)has had to be catered for every year since 1995? The figures look surprisingly high in relation to data from the Migration Observatory at Oxford. Their August 2022 briefing reported that an estimated 388,000 foreign-born people living in the UK in 2019 originally came to claim asylum. In the three ubsequent years the total number of persons seeking asylum has been about 177,000. Even if all the applications in the last three years were successful, that would still put the total number of foreign-born people living in the UK who came to claim asylum in the last 27 years at under 600,000 - little more than the population of Worcester. And in terms of the "full-house" argument, we have to remember that as many as one million EU citizens in England and Wales who applied to the post-Brexit EU Settlement Scheme are no longer in the UK.I always become a little concerned when people talk about genuine refugees, because this often seems to imply that large numbers of refugees may not be genuine. Apart from the many Albanians who game the system, a very high percentage of applicants from the other main countries of origin receive positive initial decisions. For Syria, Sudan and Eritrea the initial grant rate in 2021 was 99%, 96% and 97% respectively, and for Iran and Afghanisatn the rate was 89% and 81% (Data also from the Migration Observatory August 2022 briefing).

Robert Fish ● 1286d

I will give you one from frances own Interior Minister Gerald DarmaninMaking sure people leaveFrance delivers about 120,000 removal orders, called OQTF, each year, but only deports 10 percent of them – a number that has been particularly criticised by the far-right.Defending the government’s actions, in an interview with the French daily newspaper Le Monde, Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin said that half of the orders are appealed, which puts them on hold.He said he would like the appeals process to be simplified and to make it go faster.He added he wanted to end to protections for children who arrived in France before the age of 13, who currently cannot be deported.Instead, he would like a judge to rule whether or not the person can stay.“We will make life impossible for those who have received removal orders," Darmanin said on Twitter.“For example, by making sure they will not receive social benefits or housing.”JustificationTo justify what appears to be a crackdown, Darmanin evoked crime and President Emmanuel Macron’s call to tighten the rules as he asserted last week that at least half of offenders in Paris are foreigners – a number that appears to also include legal immigrants.“If I were to summarise, I would say that we must be mean to the bad guys and nice with the nice guys,” Darmanin told Le Monde, adding that multi-year residence permits for those who pose no problems will be automatically renewed" Hold up,is that Gerald Darmanin or Suella Braverman As i say,nothing is as simple as one thinks in solving the issue

Julian Pavey ● 1285d