Gary Lineker & MOTD

[Lochalsh Par]

On 14/03/2023 at 16:23, GG Riva said:

I'll make a couple of points here, too.

1. How much someone earns is a totally irrelevant to this discussion. 

2. Lineker was spot on with his tweet which was directed at the Home Secretary's use of language towards illegal immigrants. She described them as a "swarm" and an "invasion." Not exactly endearing terms. Dehumanising them and making them out to be criminals was a tactic used in pre-WW2 Germany....  

Not so sure about the money thing. Lineker was in a paid contract which he broke. Was he morally correct, Public opinion says yes and events now support that. People listened to him because he is rich and famous (money). FIFA and the World Cup were effectively bought by Qatar and expected to play lip service to their Human Rights performance and pretty much got that with some exceptions. 

Many people speak from a high moral high ground where they have no qualification or right to be and I include myself here. I would prefer that the UK sort our own problems with poverty and homelessness as a priority. Perhaps I am just cynical which may stem from being a Gulf War Veteran and old. 

I have much sympathy for genuine refugees and equal disdain for those abusing the system. My charities are Erskine hospital, the Samaritans and the RNLI. I do also put some to the Glasgow soup kitchen when I can.

[Digs]

4 hours ago, Lochalsh Par said:

Not so sure about the money thing. Lineker was in a paid contract which he broke. Was he morally correct, Public opinion says yes and events now support that. People listened to him because he is rich and famous (money). FIFA and the World Cup were effectively bought by Qatar and expected to play lip service to their Human Rights performance and pretty much got that with some exceptions. 

Many people speak from a high moral high ground where they have no qualification or right to be and I include myself here. I would prefer that the UK sort our own problems with poverty and homelessness as a priority. Perhaps I am just cynical which may stem from being a Gulf War Veteran and old. 

I have much sympathy for genuine refugees and equal disdain for those abusing the system. My charities are Erskine hospital, the Samaritans and the RNLI. I do also put some to the Glasgow soup kitchen when I can.

Lineker didn't break any contract, the BBC apologised to him!

Looking inwardly and only caring about ourselves is what the government would have you believe we are doing but they're not. It's also not the sign of a civilised society. Sacking off refugees from countries we bombed back to the stone age is the least we can do as we, along with other allies created most of the chaos and also made an absolute ton of money from doing so.

Genuine refugees far outweigh any abusing the system. The problem isn't them coming here, or the boats. All that is, is a distraction from our government to cover the absolute shambles that is our asylum system which they have left to go to ruin through lack of funding since they've been in power. Why? They want politics of envy and culture wars so we are all distracted by those arguments in order for them to keep feathering their own nests, and those of their benefactors. To do that, they need to be in power so they stir up these feelings of them vs us to create fake solutions so that people continue to vote for them.

That's all this is about.

[lambo1885]

"The way a government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it."

Tony Benn

[Lochalsh Par]

On 16/03/2023 at 16:36, Digs said:

Lineker didn't break any contract, the BBC apologised to him!

Looking inwardly and only caring about ourselves is what the government would have you believe we are doing but they're not. It's also not the sign of a civilised society. Sacking off refugees from countries we bombed back to the stone age is the least we can do as we, along with other allies created most of the chaos and also made an absolute ton of money from doing so.

Genuine refugees far outweigh any abusing the system. The problem isn't them coming here, or the boats. All that is, is a distraction from our government to cover the absolute shambles that is our asylum system which they have left to go to ruin through lack of funding since they've been in power. Why? They want politics of envy and culture wars so we are all distracted by those arguments in order for them to keep feathering their own nests, and those of their benefactors. To do that, they need to be in power so they stir up these feelings of them vs us to create fake solutions so that people continue to vote for them.

That's all this is about.

Some fair points and it now appears that Lineker had "special permission" to tweet. I am still cynical about motive but that is me. My view is that you have to sort the root of a problem and that dealing only with the effects usually means the problem will perpetuate. The issue with refugees should be sorted at source i.e. stop people becoming refugees in the first place. Deal with the tyrants who cause poverty and war. Deal with natural disasters, even these are made worse by greed, corruption and the desire for power. The recent Turkish earthquake highlights that with death and destruction exacerbated by buildings not being built to Turkish Seismic Law. This is the job of the UN who are very well paid but do little in return. We should be pointing  a big stick at the UN and asking what they are really doing about the global situation.

As said, you have made some good points and I concede we should look to be better at helping those who need us. Giving them shelter, home and help here in the short term but the long term answer should be to make their own country a safe and decent place to live and thrive. I disagree that we should ignore the abusers. Sort them swiftly and then there. is more resource for the genuine.

A point I have real difficulty with is why do people escape tyranny and get into a safe country, then travel through many safe countries to get to France. They then take a very significant life risk by getting into small boats just to get to the UK. It baffles me. Why not seek sanctuary in the first safe country (International law says you should). Language and family connections are cited but I would suggest that these are in a low minority.

[Digs]

1 hour ago, Lochalsh Par said:

Some fair points and it now appears that Lineker had "special permission" to tweet. I am still cynical about motive but that is me. My view is that you have to sort the root of a problem and that dealing only with the effects usually means the problem will perpetuate. The issue with refugees should be sorted at source i.e. stop people becoming refugees in the first place. Deal with the tyrants who cause poverty and war. Deal with natural disasters, even these are made worse by greed, corruption and the desire for power. The recent Turkish earthquake highlights that with death and destruction exacerbated by buildings not being built to Turkish Seismic Law. This is the job of the UN who are very well paid but do little in return. We should be pointing  a big stick at the UN and asking what they are really doing about the global situation.

As said, you have made some good points and I concede we should look to be better at helping those who need us. Giving them shelter, home and help here in the short term but the long term answer should be to make their own country a safe and decent place to live and thrive. I disagree that we should ignore the abusers. Sort them swiftly and then there. is more resource for the genuine.

A point I have real difficulty with is why do people escape tyranny and get into a safe country, then travel through many safe countries to get to France. They then take a very significant life risk by getting into small boats just to get to the UK. It baffles me. Why not seek sanctuary in the first safe country (International law says you should). Language and family connections are cited but I would suggest that these are in a low minority.

I’m not sure what you mean about motive, what possible motive could he have? Does he sell rubber dinghies? He’s personally taken in refugees to his own home. 

The reason the majority of these people became refugees is down to war and mostly ones we took part in then left them to crack on. They got rid of Gaddafi in Libya to ‘liberate the people’ then walked away leaving a huge power vacuum now fought over by warring tribes and a country that had a great infrastructure leaving it with pretty much none. We went into Iraq under false pretences, we went to Afghanistan for over ten years, we bombed Syria and achieved what? Oh aye, we created a terror organization that is now spreading in ISIS that these people are now fleeing from, not only in Asia, but Africa. ‘Dealing with the problem’ hasn’t worked out so well so far…

I also never said we should ignore the abusers, I said that just because a minority abuse it, that is no reason to stop helping. They are not mutually exclusive and can both be dealt with simultaneously. 

Finally, there is nothing in International law that says you must stop at the next safe country, it actually states you can seek refuge in any country you please. This is in fact what the huge majority do in fact choose to do. Turkey have taken on the most at 3.6m, Germany are the only country in Europe in the top ten at 1.2m, we are nowhere near it. The notion that we are being overrun by ‘swarms’ of ‘invading hoards’ is a fanciful notion at best and down right lies at worst. We have only had approx 360k come here to the end of last year. Which equates to about 0.006% of our population. That being the case, I’m pretty sure we can cope. 

 

[SanguinePar]

1 hour ago, Lochalsh Par said:

Why not seek sanctuary in the first safe country (International law says you should)

Not true.

Do people have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach?

No. The 1951 Refugee Convention does not require a person to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. People trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

Source: https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/#:~:text=Do people have to claim,UK if they reach it.

[SanguinePar]

32 minutes ago, Digs said:

I’m not sure what you mean about motive, what possible motive could he have? Does he sell rubber dinghies?

PMSL :-)

[SanguinePar]

Braverman criticised for shutting out Guardian and BBC from Rwanda trip

Certainly the actions of a perfectly normal government, no hint of repression of critics here. Nope.

[GG Riva]

1 hour ago, Lochalsh Par said:

Some fair points and it now appears that Lineker had "special permission" to tweet. I am still cynical about motive but that is me. My view is that you have to sort the root of a problem and that dealing only with the effects usually means the problem will perpetuate. The issue with refugees should be sorted at source i.e. stop people becoming refugees in the first place. Deal with the tyrants who cause poverty and war. Deal with natural disasters, even these are made worse by greed, corruption and the desire for power. The recent Turkish earthquake highlights that with death and destruction exacerbated by buildings not being built to Turkish Seismic Law. This is the job of the UN who are very well paid but do little in return. We should be pointing  a big stick at the UN and asking what they are really doing about the global situation.

As said, you have made some good points and I concede we should look to be better at helping those who need us. Giving them shelter, home and help here in the short term but the long term answer should be to make their own country a safe and decent place to live and thrive. I disagree that we should ignore the abusers. Sort them swiftly and then there. is more resource for the genuine.

A point I have real difficulty with is why do people escape tyranny and get into a safe country, then travel through many safe countries to get to France. They then take a very significant life risk by getting into small boats just to get to the UK. It baffles me. Why not seek sanctuary in the first safe country (International law says you should). Language and family connections are cited but I would suggest that these are in a low minority.

The "solutions" to the refugee "problem" are reasonable and logical. In an ideal world, the richer countries would help the poorer ones to develop and prosper. Sadly, the world we live in is far from ideal. Many of the poorest countries are still paying interest to Western banks for loans received in the 60s and 70s. Without these payments, these countries might be able to make ends meet, but the banks refuse to wipe out the debts. We export arms to countries which are then used in war torn countries. Helping the poor in their own countries is at best very complex and sometimes downright impossible. Digs is spot on in that the vast majority of refugees trying to come to Britain are only looking for a better life for themselves and their children. I'm an economic migrant myself. My parents worked hard for long hours on low pay, on a farm and never complained. My siblings and I had an opportunity to study and go on to successful careers. We all paid our taxes and contributed to the Scottish economy. This was at a time when Britain was still rebuilding after WW2 and needed cheap foreign labour. Now, thanks to the folly of Brexit, harvests are lost because foreign workers are denied entry.

Why can some people not see that diversity enriches a country's culture and people from other countries are not our enemies.

I highly recommend a wonderful book by Robert Winder, "Bloody Foreigners - The History of Immigration to Britain". It's full of irony, humour and poignancy. You'll be amazed at how many Brits who made a significant contribution to this country's progress were actually foreigners.... 🙂

[Lochalsh Par]

6 hours ago, SanguinePar said:

Not true.

Do people have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach?

No. The 1951 Refugee Convention does not require a person to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. People trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

Source: https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/#:~:text=Do people have to claim,UK if they reach it.

Nobody is answering the question as to why people would leave a safe country to risk their lives in a small boat to cross the channel. a simple question with no agenda just why would you do it?

[Lochalsh Par]

6 hours ago, SanguinePar said:

PMSL :-)

Does this really need an explanation? Lineker is using this to enhance his reputation and is playing at virtue signalling. Many are happy to do this but few actually do anything of substance. How many on this thread contribute to refugees or would be willing to house some. Money where your mouth is. 

[Al k]

1 hour ago, Lochalsh Par said:

Nobody is answering the question as to why people would leave a safe country to risk their lives in a small boat to cross the channel. a simple question with no agenda just why would you do it?

The ones that have moved on have done so for numerous reasons, English has been a second language, they have ties with the Commonwealth, family have served with Britain in some form.

Thats just the reason I remember off the top if my head.

Its easily googled. 

[Lochalsh Par]

16 hours ago, Al k said:

The ones that have moved on have done so for numerous reasons, English has been a second language, they have ties with the Commonwealth, family have served with Britain in some form.

Thats just the reason I remember off the top if my head.

Its easily googled. 

I did caveat that in my posting quite clearly. Read the thread. That accounts for some but not the vast majority. That is also easily googled. Seems like nobody has an answer as to why people would risk their lives in a small boat to leave a safe country - France.  It is doubly confusing given that people think the UK Government, their policies and treatment of refugees is downright wrong. So why risk your life to come here then? Why so many from Albania and other "safe" countries? 

[Al k]

2 hours ago, Lochalsh Par said:

I did caveat that in my posting quite clearly. Read the thread. That accounts for some but not the vast majority. That is also easily googled. Seems like nobody has an answer as to why people would risk their lives in a small boat to leave a safe country - France.  It is doubly confusing given that people think the UK Government, their policies and treatment of refugees is downright wrong. So why risk your life to come here then? Why so many from Albania and other "safe" countries? 

I'll assume the reply just reads as condescending and isn't actually. 

The thread is about Gary Lineker and his post where you have asked a question I have given a quick reply too. One of your replies was about people escaping tyranny from a safe country. That would suggest it's not a safe country unless you meant individual tyranny such as human trafficking.

Which is a good example to use as the majority of Albanians coming here have been trafficked with modern slavery they have been moved by the traffickers from a country such as France to the UK and then pushed into illegal work. I think the current estimate was around 2500 people and then 85% went missing from where they were then processed in UK after the traffickers had then got them.

People can be trying to get out of "safe countries" such as Albania for a number of reasons religion, social groups they were active in, race, ethnic or political opinion. 

All easily googled fifth link I found, I suspect your question isn't being answered because you maybe don't like the actual answer.

This is a complicated subject that can't be fully answered but here is a link with full information and the actual figure not spouted by the government or massaged to fit any agenda.

https://miclu.org/blog/fact-check-albanian-boat-arrivals

 

[Digs]

19 hours ago, Lochalsh Par said:

Does this really need an explanation? Lineker is using this to enhance his reputation and is playing at virtue signalling. Many are happy to do this but few actually do anything of substance. How many on this thread contribute to refugees or would be willing to house some. Money where your mouth is. 

He literally does this as I’ve already said. If putting up asylum seekers in your own house is virtue signaling then that is quite honestly the most Tory thing I think I’ve ever heard.