The BBC

[Chippy_Tea]

This made me laugh but it sums it up perfectly

I stopped at 17 seconds when he starts the rant with "Why are we still talking about Garry ******* Linaker" another bandwagon jumped on

 

[Rodcx500z]

I stopped at 17 seconds when he starts the rant with "Why are we still talking about Garry ******* Linaker" another bandwagon jumped on

Watch it all and you will get it

 

[Brew_DD2]

This made me laugh but it sums it up perfectly

Does that not contradict your earlier posts on this thread..?

 

[Rodcx500z]

Does that not contradict your earlier posts on this thread..?

Yes it does, but i have been thinking more about it and the more i think i realise Linaker is right, the only thing he did wrong was mentioning the Germans

 

[dad_of_jon]

JP has an angry style that I think detracts from whatever message he talks about. When someone starts ranting in my direction I just switch off. persuasiveness is best done softly.

I don't know how many people arriving in small boats on our shores are genuine war/persecution refugees or economic migrants or how many were misled by the people smugglers (that have not been stopped) that there would be no danger crossing the channel or even why once in a safe country e.g. france want to risk the extra danger of a small boat channel crossing.

IF the fact that genuine asylum claims processing time within 6 months has fallen from about 90% to about 4% is the a cause or effect of illegal immigration?

A big cock-up usually requires a number of people to make it successfull. (unlike a brewing cock-up which is usually down to one person ) who exactly makes this one so, will be for you to decide

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I don't know how many people arriving in small boats on our shores are genuine war/persecution refugees or economic migrants

Something like 85% of the boat people successfully claim asylum, rising to eg 95% in the case of the Afghans. So given that international law says that it is always legal to claim asylum even if you don't have papers, and that you can claim asylum in any country, not just the first safe one you come to, then at least 85% are "legal", so it's rather misleading for people to always claim that they are somehow "illegal".

why once in a safe country e.g. france want to risk the extra danger of a small boat channel crossing.

Most of them don't make the boat crossing, they stay on the Continent. Even if all of those entering France either stayed in France or crossed the Channel, it would be about 1 in a boat for every 3 that stayed in France. In reality a lot of those who enter France then go over land borders to Germany etc, so it's probably more like 1 in 10 migrants to France get in a boat to the UK.

Because you need a really good reason to risk your life like that - surveys say that the main reason is because they already have family here, or they can speak English so it's a lot easier to integrate.

IF the fact that genuine asylum claims processing time within 6 months has fallen from about 90% to about 4% is the a cause or effect of illegal immigration?

The main problem is that just about every civil servant I talk to seems to agree that the Home Office is the most dysfunctional department in government - and has been for years. There's lots of reasons for that, but part of it is that most of the recent Home Secretaries have been wishful-thinking rabble-rousers with no real interest in getting things to work. They could really do with a Phil "Spreadsheet" Hammond to come in and just disappear from the headlines for a few years whilst getting things working.

But in also really, really doesn't help that they're wasting so much money on all sorts of futile schemes to placate the Daily Mail. We gave Rwanda a bung of £120m just to agree to the scheme (they got the cash, we still haven't sent anybody there) and we'll pay £20-30k per migrant we send there.

We spent up to £1bn on a three-year contract for drones to watch over the Channel. So that's over £8k per migrant just on drones, never mind patrol boats and all the rest.

We've given the French over £250m since 2015 to Do Something, and not surprisingly that's not worked, so last week Sunak agreed to give France €541m (~£480m, or £4k per person) over three years to Stop the Headlines.

Last year were spending £1700m/year on housing 37k Afghans and asylum seekers, £46k per person. Cos whilst they are waiting for their application to be processed they can't work so are dependent on taxpayers, whereas if they are allowed to stay after processing then they can start working and being productive.

So it suits nobody to delay processing - it costs an absolute fortune to leave them in limbo, the locals don't want them in their hotels, and the refugees themselves just want to get out and start earning a living, but the incompetence of the Home Office forces them to sponge off the state.

It's a complete mess. Just giving them tickets for the Eurostar would stop the boats and save £bn's in drones and other surveillance, but the Daily Mail would hate it, they would rather waste taxpayer's money.

 

[Donegal john]

I would call them dinosaurs, but they probably don't believe dinosaurs existed

How could they when they think the world is only 2023 years old ?

 

[dad_of_jon]

BBC says Mr Crispy is returning to MOTD. It's not on their front page but under entertainment and arts. It was on most of the papers front page.

I do hope this leads to a subscription model, although hard to see how they can guard against the extra loss of income. If they do go subscription I wonder if they would let you watching ITV without a BBC subscription because that's how the TV licence works atm? - Even though the commercial channels are funded by ads.

pay per view would be better as the licence fee at present is an all you can eat style arrangement. Which is great in theory but when most of the fayre on offer is sub par its poor value.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

90% of the SWMBO watches is on BBC if it went pay per view it would probably cost us more than the current licence fee especially when you compare it to Sky.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

 

[Northern_Brewer]

If you are inferring nazi style behavior by someone,

Sigh. He wasn't saying anything about being Nazis, he wasn't saying that Bravermann wanted to gas asylum seekers, he just said the language was similar to the 1930s. That could only be controversial to someone not familiar with the period.

Just look at the three main planks of the Fascist arguments in both Italy and Germany between the wars :
1) It has been a great country and will be again, except it's being held back by the interference of neighbouring European countries like France. Obviously they were talking about the Treaty of Versailles but there's clear parallels with recent language around the EU.

2) Our traditional way of life is being threatened by the degenerate socialists who are either foreign or have foreign ideas and who are little better than animals (which then justifies violence towards them, on a nudge-nudge, wink-wink basis as we've seen in Knowlsey a few weeks ago and then pretend to be horrified by the violence)

3) There's a liberal elite that don't understand the working man and who are "enemies of the people" always working to thwart the "Volkswillen" or "Willen des Volkes" - the will of the people. Sound familiar? The idea of the will of the people is powerful because even if one presents quite extreme positions as the will of the people, a lot of people will just go along with it because they don't like feeling left out even if they don't quite understand all the ramifications (like what a customs union is). The war against "lefty lawyers" and "the lefty BBC" fit exactly into this pattern, although it's convenient for them that Labour are led by a lefty lawyer.

That was the original formulation in the 1920s at least, in both Italy and Germany, it was only later in Germany that 2) and 3) were merged into a single group of the Jews as "super villains", but it allowed the violence in 2) to be extended to 3).

People are the same through the ages, and it's not surprising that effective propaganda ends up pushing the same buttons. You just have to realise that's what it is, people are always trying to manipulate you with this stuff.

If you've been involved in these kinds of areas professionally you will be aware that by definition, the truth cannot be libel or slander. By the same token, the truth cannot be political. If Lineker was making a statement of fact, then he was not being political, any more than if he tweeted that 2+2 = 4.

It has said a lot about the competence and partiality of BBC management that they managed to make such a total mess of this though.

[I see Chippy has posted on another thread some comments about similar language being used by a British magistrate in 1938.]

 

[dad_of_jon]

risk of imminent death if you stay somewhere is a no-brainer. (a la afgans working with the west and ukrainians following Mr. P's invasion). For those that want a better life than they have it's a bit more complicated and we'll never have all the facts to hand. Think of the USA and their wanted vs unwanted migration. If there was an easy solution it would have be solved by now. Interesting to see that apparently the dail mail was stirring all those years ago.

And there we have my opinion of the MSM in a nutshell , stirring it up to get eyeballs with no concern above division of society. I vaguely recall the press could once be trusted.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

[I see Chippy has posted on another thread some comments about similar language being used by a British magistrate in 1938.]

I posted in wrong thread (moved here) post #130 above.

 

[dad_of_jon]

Sigh. He wasn't saying anything about being Nazis, he wasn't saying that Bravermann wanted to gas asylum seekers, he just said the language was similar to the 1930s. That could only be controversial to someone not familiar with the period.

I have to disagree there , great to have your detail though. I know enough to realise who came to power in the 1930's and the tone of communications that came out of that dark period of history was what Mr Crispy's tweet made me think of. Now ask a 20 yr old what they thought of that tweet they probably wouldn't care or have a clue.

I am reasonably familiar with that period albeit perhaps not as much as you NB but I thought it was a bit of a barbed insult my Mr Crispy. What I took from that is he should stick to his job. Actually gassing of victims really started in 1941 onwards well in auschwitz anyway so unless they broadcast their desire to gas jews in advance of doing that the inference about Bravermann wanting to kill people is incorrect. I refer to the tactic of labelling anyone you don't agree with as a NAZI or Nazi like behaviour which it seemed to me that Mr Crispy did.

I did appreciate your expanded info to give context as to why things unwound as they did. Two wrongs never make a right and the treaty of Versailles was too harsh. It doesn't excuse the atrocities the German state at that time committed. How Germany (And Japan) was treated after ww2 was a much more sensible way of bringing stability to the world.

I suspect the way to stop those who would seek to influence others beyond their sphere of expertise is to deny them the oxygen of publicity.

All I can say for certainty in all of this is that someone (in this Case Mr Crispy) usually brings up Hitler/nazi like behaviour when they have no more coherent way to explain things (or is that twitters character limit ;-)

doesn't everyone know that Adolf lives in Swansea now due to a bizarre nazi experiment to ensure immortality?

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/you-can-now-live-swansea-11856533

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Another data point - whilst the government tells us that they can't do anything about the "real problem" which is the smugglers over in France, an actual smuggler says that most of them live in the UK as it's easier for them. So why do the government pretend otherwise? Are they just incompetent, or does it actually quite suit them to have a steady stream of boat people to frighten voters with whenever they need a dead cat to distract from their latest incompetence?

 

[dad_of_jon]

Another data point - whilst the government tells us that they can't do anything about the "real problem" which is the smugglers over in France, an actual smuggler says that most of them live in the UK as it's easier for them. So why do the government pretend otherwise? Are they just incompetent, or does it actually quite suit them to have a steady stream of boat people to frighten voters with whenever they need a dead cat to distract from their latest incompetence?

I think you've touched on something there. "never let a good crisis go to waste" When a particular party is in power for a long time it seems their competency is inversely related to their time spend in power. They just take the voters more and more for granted until they get a slapdown in the general election a la the eating a bucket of in public moment....

 

[Northern_Brewer]

From Private Eye :

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I have to disagree there , great to have your detail though. I know enough to realise who came to power in the 1930's and the tone of communications that came out of that dark period of history was what Mr Crispy's tweet made me think of. Now ask a 20 yr old what they thought of that tweet they probably wouldn't care or have a clue.

History teaching over the last 20+ years has been described as "the Holocaust plus a bit" - the one thing that gets taught in schools is WWII. So most 20 yos will be well aware. (and in any case the young are generally anti-Tory and quite pro freedom of movement, so they're not really Lineker's targets)

I thought it was a bit of a barbed insult my Mr Crispy.

It's a bit rich of you to complain about insults when you're calling him "Mr Crispy" - it's not even shorter to type than "Lineker", it just makes you look...unconstructive.

What I took from that is he should stick to his job.

So you're saying that we shouldn't be talking about this either, because neither of us have the job of "20th century historian"? Wow, you really do like censorship.

Actually gassing of victims really started in 1941 onwards well in auschwitz anyway so unless they broadcast their desire to gas jews in advance of doing that the inference about Bravermann wanting to kill people is incorrect. I refer to the tactic of labelling anyone you don't agree with as a NAZI or Nazi like behaviour which it seemed to me that Mr Crispy did.

Except he explicitly didn't label anyone as a Nazi - only you are, and I would argue that you're opening yourself to a libel suit by saying so. He was careful to refer in a general sense to the 1930s, when as we've seen even British magistrates were using similar language.

I'd be interested to see if you can find an example of Lineker labelling anyone as an actual Nazi as I suspect you can't. You're the one trying to use the word, not him. Obviously the word has force as an insult because they went on to gas people they didn't like, but surely you can see that they didn't go there immediately, they went through phases - at one point they wanted to send all the Jews to Madagascar rather than kill them. Anti-semitic language in the 1930s was an earlier phase still - it didn't mean that a majority of Nazis wanted to kill Jews at that point, conversely not everyone who used anti-semitic language or anti-immigrant language would go on to gas Jews. Some of them went to work for the Daily Mail instead, but for some reason you don't imply that Lineker was referring to that particular segment of the using-anti-Semitic-language-in-the-1930s population. Just replace "DM journalist" for "Nazi" in your comments above and you'll see how weird it is, he was talking about a much bigger group than just Nazis.

I suspect the way to stop those who would seek to influence others beyond their sphere of expertise is to deny them the oxygen of publicity.

That would apply to most of the current governing party, like Boris Johnson signing up to leave a customs unions when he didn't know what one was.

All I can say for certainty in all of this is that someone (in this Case Mr Crispy) usually brings up Hitler/nazi like behaviour when they have no more coherent way to explain things (or is that twitters character limit ;-)

As above - let's see evidence that Lineker has called someone a Nazi. Conversely, here's a Tory MP using the N word against "woke-ism" that he doesn't like.
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/tory-mp-compares-footballers-taking-the-knee-to-nazi-salutes-1.517483

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Huh. Lineker's agent claims he had a special agreement with the Director-General (Tim Davie, the one that stood as a Tory candidate in local elections and was deputy chairman of his local Tory party, as opposed to the chairman who was the one that fixed up Johnson's loan) to be able to comment on immigration issues as it was something he was particularly passionate about :
https://www.newstatesman.com/diary/2023/03/jon-holmes-gary-lineker-tweet-bbc-panic
Meanwhile the D-G was advised not to take him off air but went ahead anyway :
https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2023/03/gary-lineker-special-agreement-tim-davie