There's not a single doubt in my mind that Corbyn would agree 100% with the quote in that picture. How could anyone think differently?
BBC Impartiality
- Thread starter ThehatchetMan
- Start date
There's not a single doubt in my mind that Corbyn would agree 100% with the quote in that picture. How could anyone think differently?
I agree with the sentiment and can understand where you are coming from.
But I am not sure the UK currently allows for a free exchange of ideas. And I already think the state does a lot of labelling and grouping of people's already even before we start to debate issues.
Givers and takers, immigrants or British, scroungers or employed - without even touching the long history of England and Ireland, the British Empire and its post imperial death spasms we are living through are based on creating divisions and exploiting them.
And maybe you are right in that we need to look for commonalities rather than entrenching those divisions. I don't think we can always do that. There are plenty of people who don't want to be convinced or play by your rules.
circling back to GL - he didnt need to make a reference to 1930s Germany. He could have used any of dozens of British colonies where the same thing happened (and which successive governments deny ever happened).
Anyway I'm rambling as it is late. I'll end there.
Jeremy Corbyn has voted against the Labour Party more than any other MP. If he believed in picking one side or the other, why does he so frequently oppose his own?
Also I would add that neutrality is different from objectivity.
Assuming a value free neutrality is wrong. Things aren't neutral.
That doesn't mean we cannot take an objective view of what is happening.
Assuming a value free neutrality is wrong. Things aren't neutral.
That doesn't mean we cannot take an objective view of what is happening.
One of Rylan’s best quotes it has to be said.
All good points though.
At the end of the day we all have our own beliefs but we have to be realistic at the same time too. I'm pretty hard left with my views but I also realise that alot of people have polar opposite views and the readical changes I like will never be imposed.
So the best way is to compromise and chip away bit by bit. And actually I think this is a strategy that the conservatives have implemented very well over the last 13 years.
When you consider that a debate about breaking humans right conventions is a left or right debate then you know the countries gone mad. But this has been achieved by chipping away slowly bit by bit and making what was neutral in 2010 now feel like centre right.
I'm not a fan of Starmer at all because I'm a huge Corbyn fan and having read the Labour files, and the BBC bias I even reference in op, it was Starmer and others which sabotaged his campaign from the inside as well as the media of course.
I just hope that with him at least being less radical that maybe we will at least move a bit more towards the centre in the coming years. Which while not ideal, is at least progress.
Because there aren't just two sides. If anything, him voting against the Labour Party so often is a great example of how he won't stay neutral, and won't easily compromise on his strongly held views.
And he was also one of the biggest EU critics for years yet took a neutral position on brexit as party leader. Evidence of compromise right there.
He was a sympathiser with Sinn Fien too who were described as the political wing of the IRA at the time. A huge supporter of Irish independence too at the time. He was influential in the good Friday agreement. An agreement which he voted for and compromised on.
I think Europe in the 20s was a great marketplace of ideas. Can't remember how did it go.
There's a time and place for compromise and a time and a place for picking sides I think.
There's a time and place for compromise and a time and a place for picking sides I think.
And yet...
Checkmate
What a load of tripe!
Saying it's like Nazi Germany is pretty fecking stupid tbf and I think he can't know feck all about history if that's what he thinks.
Similarly deplatforming him for saying it is also fecking stupid and the whole thing is just a waste of time. Whole thing is pathetic.
Similarly deplatforming him for saying it is also fecking stupid and the whole thing is just a waste of time. Whole thing is pathetic.
He didn’t say that though, I don’t know why a lot of folk are struggling with this. He said the language used is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the '30s.
There’s a clear difference between the tone and use of the language and the actions of Nazi Germany.
The Tories are desperate to create a distraction from the Matt Hancock WhatsApp messages, have decided to draw Linekars words into him saying that they’ve compared what they’re doing to the actions of Nazi Germany.
But the 30s was the year that the Nazis got political control of the country. I mean that's what he's getting at surely? Otherwise why reference that point in time?
I'm not really a fan of censorship in general tbh so you're probably preaching to the choir anyway as deplatforming him is worse than anything he's said, even if he said Rishi was the second coming of Adolf I probably would stand by his right to say it, even though it would be idiotic.
No, he’s getting at how the language used in the policy and reasons for creating that policy isn’t dissimilar to language used then. He’s not saying that Tories are about to follow the same actions, but he’s suggesting that normalising this language has tended to carry momentum to experiences in history that we would quite rather do without.
Tories begin frothing at the mouth as they queue up the gaslighting on every interview on the media on how he’s compared them to the actions of Nazi’s. Which he hasn’t done at all.
I don't see it as too dissimilar from how the Sun or whichever asshole tabloid started printing all the 'Red Ed' things during Ed Miliband's labour campaign. I mean they could also have said 'we aren't saying Ed Miliband is spearheading something like the Bolshevik revolution and a future totalitarian government. But they knew what they were doing by using politically loaded terminology.
It's part of the general consciousness that 30s Germany, Nazis, Hitler has a particular weight to it that requires sensible use by anyone who has a public platform. I mean, I don't care what he says that much because I'm not a pitchfork wielding weirdo. But seeing as there is plenty of appetite for hysteria out there, it is asking for trouble to reference '30s Germany'. I'm surprised that that isn't obvious to you as you seem to have a handle of things. Are you sure you aren't a bit swayed by your dislike of Tories? Would be quite understandable, but I don't see how it can't be obvious that comparing a situation to that specific one is heavily loaded.
If anything it's just totally backfired as he has just given them blanket ammunition to - as you say - gaslight the point he was trying to originally make.
My history isn't too great but in terms of language as that's the comparison made. I believe the nazis did speak about Jews invading their country and being criminals and wanting different laws to apply to those they seen as foreign such as the Jews.
With that said I can understand and respect if you feel its too extreme.
Language aside, the policy itself is very controversial and what we should really be talking about. Do you think there's realistically any chance of it being legal and actually getting applied though?
And lastly, seeing as it is the thread title. What's your opinions on the BBC. Impartial or not?
I actually dread talking about immigration so I would rather just bury my head in the sand tbh, rightly or wrongly. It's such a complicated issue with no easy answer. It seems like a rabbit hole that takes you into the fundamental problems with the world in general and the various failings of humanity.
Re the BBC being impartial, I don't have an illusions about the BBC being impartial, I think such an idea is ridiculous. It's a broadcaster that is an arm of the state. In terms of propaganda it's hardly Russia Today but there is a clear flavour to most of the content on the BBC that doesn't strike me as particularly impartial. I'm not much of a fan of the BBC really, which is a shame because I think it used to be such a great institution. If I say I feel like it has a progressive liberal agenda that makes me uneasy it is generally the recipe for some furious reaction from a section of the Internet so it's best to not say much. I was trying to just stick to the Lineker thing because I saw both things as needless: a) what he said being politically loaded and ott and then b) being censored and deplatformed which I don't like even more.
It feels like everyone is falling over backwards these days to say and think the right things all the time and it makes me feel uneasy because in my opinion being a good person is about having kindness and empathy and that kind of thing and not necessarily making sure you have used your speech acceptably in a hyper scrutinised and hysterical environment.
In terms of immigration, I don't personally think either party can truly fix it to satisfaction of a clear majority. Its more of a global scale issue rather than one which can truly be resolved domestically in my opinion. I don't think politicians help by making it an us v them scenario though.
As for BBC bias there is certainly a counter argument to be made on some points. There are people who feel it was bias in its reporting on brexit and with covid too. I don't agree with all their points but I can understand why some would feel that way and accept that the bbc on ocassion is probably impartial to the left at times.
You mention pushing a progressive Liberal agenda. Again not sure what you mean but just taking a guess maybe you mean by stuff such as brexit, covid, trans rights, blm, climate etc.. And typically being more Liberal with their reporting on those subjects.
Again I'd probably be inclined to actually agree that on the whole alot of their reporting would be more Liberal in these areas.
Where I have issue though is with some of the stuff Alan Sugar, Andrew Neil or Jeremy Clarkson have said which is much worse than Gary Linekar in my opinion. Again happy to disagree if you think otherwise. One thing we could both say though is that all three have said stuff which could cause offence. I don't believe they should have been treated like Gary but I feel all should be treated equally.
And my biggest issue in terms of impartiality is that judge and jury is very much the Conservative party as there are about three directors/chairmen now all linked to the party in different ways. You can't be impartial when the people marking your homework are previous candidates, donors and financial facilitators to the party in government.
Now if you truly wish to influence the BBC you cannot be bias to the conservatives in every subject because it will get called out very quickly. So it makes sense for there to be a bias there that swings both ways.
Whether or not you can agree with me that there is also a Conservative bias in some instances I don't know. What I will say is that I feel its been used as a weapon to promote a culture war and to create division. Would you agree with that?
Everything gets labeled these days and you're one side or the other. If someone feels there is a political motive behind blm but still supports the underlying message, they get called a racist. If someone supports adults to be able to change gender but opposes it for children in Scotland. Or if they oppose trans people going to prisons of their new gender, they may be labeled anti trans. I think these are very complex subjects and you can't categoroze people into 2 boxes based on their views.
And I don't think that helps. You're this side or that side. Nobody can be 100% one or the other.
With regards to your last paragraph, I completely agree. I think when it comes to speech that words can be intereperted in 10s of different ways and we're all guilty of saying something at one stage which was received differently from how we intended. We need to be more understanding and respectful of others opinions and promote sensible discussion.
And I'll just finish by saying. While we're all here debating immigration, NHS, housing and whatever other political topics. The top 10 billionaires doubled their wealth during covid. There is alot of inequality right now and out of all new wealth generated in the last few years 2/3rds have went to the top 10. If we want to solve problems then the billionaire one should be top of the list.
Last edited:
Gary Lineker merely questioned the language that the Home Office and Government were using, comparing it to the language of the Nazis in the 1930s, now you can argue until the cows come home over his right to say it or anything political doing the job he does. You can argue counterpoint to counterpoint over others who also have done and do freely speak their minds. Of course it matters and will be decided by the BBC in the mess that they are in while it is pointed out the the Tories have put the control of the BBC into their own hands, excepting that the public and media will also have their say, and while the BBC themselves find their funding on a knife edge from all sides, all of that will come about somehow.
What people are missing is that apart from Lineker's very empathic call to see these people as humans and not scum, lower than human, or some sorts of animals taking what is 'ours', which is always timely, is that yet again the truth is being hidden from you using what are a lot of people's base instincts. That a party that currently rules, with members who are terrified of losing not just their jobs but also their influence over how big theirs and their friends Troughs can grow are again, just as was done in Germany and throughout Europe during the 30s and 40s are using Different people as this Distraction from all of their mistakes, problems, in-electability and sheer thievery by what are and were then organised gangsters to take your attention from all that they have done and wish to continue to do and hide from your eyes, using that innate hatred of Difference.
It's the Three Card Trick, the Rabbit in the Hat, a percentage of people will always choose to believe that people with Different skin colours, cultures, beliefs or whatever are, as we learned, and were not born with, should always be the target of our hate rather than the crimes of people who appear on the surface to be just like us.
The Tories desperately want us to carry on talking about a Sports Presenter who didn't even call anyone a Nazi.
What people are missing is that apart from Lineker's very empathic call to see these people as humans and not scum, lower than human, or some sorts of animals taking what is 'ours', which is always timely, is that yet again the truth is being hidden from you using what are a lot of people's base instincts. That a party that currently rules, with members who are terrified of losing not just their jobs but also their influence over how big theirs and their friends Troughs can grow are again, just as was done in Germany and throughout Europe during the 30s and 40s are using Different people as this Distraction from all of their mistakes, problems, in-electability and sheer thievery by what are and were then organised gangsters to take your attention from all that they have done and wish to continue to do and hide from your eyes, using that innate hatred of Difference.
It's the Three Card Trick, the Rabbit in the Hat, a percentage of people will always choose to believe that people with Different skin colours, cultures, beliefs or whatever are, as we learned, and were not born with, should always be the target of our hate rather than the crimes of people who appear on the surface to be just like us.
The Tories desperately want us to carry on talking about a Sports Presenter who didn't even call anyone a Nazi.
Even my bigoted parents are insistent that Gary had the right to voice his opinion on his personal Twitter feed. This whole, silly affair has brought us all together.
Looks about right to me. What is tripe?
Trains ran on time in Germany and the autobahns weren't full of potholes.
Mussolini but he was lying about the Trains running on time.
It was Hitler who demanded Autobahns though.
Just like rights to protest were never going to be compromised. Sure.
Do I agree with his comparison - No
Do I agree this conservative government are cruel - yes
Do I think he has a right to an opinion on Twitter as a sports presenter - yes
Do I agree this conservative government are cruel - yes
Do I think he has a right to an opinion on Twitter as a sports presenter - yes
Google Piers Corbyn (Jeremy’s older bro) and watch some of his YouTube videos.
Christopher Hitchens who hated Islam and supported the Iraq War. It's not difficult tbh
Jeremy Hunt on Laura K this morning, a joke.
Tres impartial.
You make it sound like he was prejudiced like his mad brother but to be fair, he hated all religion but certainly there were aspects to islam he particularly did not like. And he supported the gulf war because he thought Saddams regime was particularly evil (it was), he believed in freedom for the Kurds (and had for years), and thought force could be used as a tool for achieving humanitarian aims (maybe it could but we fcuked that one up).
Last edited:
He came out heavily for the war that ended up with a million dead Iraqis. He gets venerated because he was eloquent and could debate, in reality a lot of his views and content were run of the mill.
I found Peter Hitchens interview on Novara media quite interesting, has some interesting observations but yeah, they're both off.
Having listened to a fair bit of LBC over the last 24 hours, the amount of Jewish people making their voices heard regarding Lineker's comments and the hurt they cause the Jewish community is quite stark.
Match Of The Day is apparently considered to be a "news" program from what I heard on the BBC NEWS this morning and that is why Linekar has to be impartial, but the likes of Sugar and Clarkson can say what they want.
Well, Lineker surely exceeded his role and yet the reason he did that is because pretty nobody is allowed to express their opinion in public anymore, because Ms Suella & her accolites just malevolently retort from a much higher position… which is really the manner physically exerted with truncheons one century ago these days.
I love how this has completely backfired on the tories, the right wing papers, the right wing news channels and those at the top of the bbc who all thought they would all see Gary put in his place for daring to speak out against this hugely corrupt government, they all though gary was going to be left with egg all over his face but it's just put the spotlight massively on those that got put in charge of the bbc because of blatant tory cronyism
I find that interesting since one of the things they say is 'Never again', but a lot of Jewish people are Conservatives.
Hate Attacks at 1,652 fell this last year by a quarter over the previous year but attacks on Jewish children rose. Surely they cannot be criticising someone who speaks against Hate Speech? Evidently they are.
Are you really surprised when you have two people from indian heritage in suella and sunak who are the main instigators in gas lighting the dehumanisation of foreign migrants for wanting to make something of their life just like their ancestors did and very likely suffered racial abuse themselves but they don't care because they know it won't effect them personally and couldn't care less about anyone else in life