- This topic has 59 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 10 months ago by
.
-
1 user thanked author for this post.
An interesting thread. The only useful contribution I can make is ( with apologies for nitpicking) to let Sidey know that it ain’t spelled Linekar.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Don’t you agree that the Tories have had 13 years in power and 6 years since Brexit to stop this, despite numerous policy launches? This is the 7th and the chances of it working also look remote.
Immigration is higher than ever, and will continue to be high. Hunt kept it quiet yesterday, but they widened the work sectors where immigration will be allowed.
Whilst we understand that you will never back Starmer, a fresh approach is required.
All this guff about Lineker takes the focus away from the real issue.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Me and Bucks are both Ashby lads, so I know he will have been called a lot worse. Not everyone draws the line in the same place, however I should respect the forum rules!!
I agree that he does seem to focus his responses at you Siderite, so I applaud your restraint and continued attempts to hold a reasonable debate.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Heath … if you’re an Ashby lad then all else is bordering on irrelevant for me. We may have considerable differences in perspective .. but some things can’t be minimised.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I believe I am an Ashby kid too.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Just to get back on track for a moment…
The BBC is excellent and one of this country’s crown jewels. But that’s not to say it’s perfect. Last week we saw Fiona Bruce say that Johnson’s dad had only hit his wife once, which she dismissed as if unimportant, despite evidence he’d hit her on repeated occasions. Bruce subsequently resigned from her post as ‘ambassador’ for a domestic violence charity and quite right too, it was a stupid remark.
Perhaps more serious was the way on which the BBC interviewed expert economists and others during the Brexit campaign, and for ‘balance’ they also interviewed Kippers and others, most of whom were thicker than a whale omelette. Now, if everyone can see it’s raining outside and someone says ‘no, the sun’s shining’, you don’t interview the ‘shiners’ in the name of balance! Yet, this is what happened on too many occasions. Complete idiots were treated with deference / reverence, as if they were experts.
Same with Johnson – he’s a proven liar and deserves to be called out when he tells lies, yet auntie failed and fails still, to do this on numerous occasions.
And then there’s this ‘ere chairman, a man with no experience in broadcasting, and one who has does big favours for Johnson, and compromises the ‘arm’s length’ principle of the BBC.
Despite these weaknesses it has proved a reliable source of info during Covid and still is a leading source on international news, such as the reporting from Ukraine, which is why the rest of the world looks to it as a beacon of excellence, and totalitarian governments fear and ban it.
Privatise the news, and what are you left with? Trump-supporting conspiracy stations like G-Beebies and Sky, with an avalanche of adverts in which the first casualty is truth. In fact the news itself would become like an advert… for the liars and charlatans on the far-right. Why? Because it suits the agenda of those funding them, and because it’s so easy for others to pay/sponsor a broadcaster to churn out sensational, exaggerated and plain untrue stories about foreigners, scroungers, teachers, doctors, lefties… all without a shred of evidence.
Yep, the BBC has it’s problems, but the way in which it’s funded allows it to keep at arms length from government, and consistently be the best there is, not only at news but at bringing the country together. That’s because it can commission programmes which are not necessarily profitable, but are nevertheless important, e.g. documentaries about history, nature, science and so on, even religious programmes which I resent but accept. That’s in contrast to channels of wall to wall commercial ‘messages’ interspersed with game shows, etc. – as informative, educational and entertaining as an ocular migraine.
All that said, the BBC has two of the most annoying people on TV – Winkleperson and Balding. Aye, shut it down now!
4 users thanked author for this post.
Very well argued Gurney.
1 user thanked author for this post.
In my opinion, the way to reduce the impact of traffikers over the channel is not to use policies that go against the UN refugee convention and to use divisive and racist rhetoric, rather provide a legal way for refugee applications, then we can have the debate about numbers. There is currently no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum – but they can only apply for asylum when they are here, yet everybody has the right to apply for asylum (there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker).
The Conservative approach to refugees seems to correctly open the borders to white refugees (Ukraine) but to close them for non-white refugees. The argument that people should apply in the first “safe” country is fundamentally flawed, it goes against the refugee convention for good reason – if all refugees settled in the first safe country, it would massively increase the potential for similar problems in that country. Also, why shouldn’t an English speaking refugee apply for asylum in an English speaking country?
The right-wing press give us the impression that UK is the most popular destination but in reality most refugees apply in neighbouring countries, Syrian refugees make up almost 20% of Lebanon’s population, Jordan houses 3 million. In Europe, we have less refugees than Italy, Sweden, France, etc despite being more populous. Germany house 1.15 million (0.31%), while we house 0.13 million (0.18%)
Lineker’s tweet (on his personal twitter account, not on a BBC programme) gave his opinion on the current government rhetoric, an opinion I share (but people are welcome to disagree). The Conservative governments lead by Johnson, Truss and Sunak have been using divisive language and have been blaming foreigners for their own mistakes. The kind of rhetoric that precedes some of the worst moments in world history. I’m not a Tory (obviously), but I can respect (and disagree with) Cameron, Major and Hague’s conservative governments, but its very difficult to respect the recent incarnations.
6 users thanked author for this post.
there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker
Aye, it’s the law that makes an act illegal, not a person, and when people are trying to escape danger, there’s no question of illegality.
Britain is often the country to which refugees gravitate when there’s war, poverty and other threats at home. Why? Because after so many British invasions and involvement in countries around the world, mainly due to imperial expansion, trade and the need for oil, English is the second language of millions, plus, compared to many political and religious dictatorships, the country has a reputation for being decent and humane, so it’s a natural choice.
Course, the main reason we know about the problems besetting refugees is because of the BBC. If public service broadcasting were abandoned to the profit motive, who on earth would bother to make a programme about problems in Syria, Afghanistan etc? There’s no money in it, and it only makes people empathise and question global inequality. Much cheaper and more profiable to make a cheap game show or similar.
And yes, there are abuses of our generosity, just as there are abuses of any system created to help those in dire straits. The Tories said the same when the welfare state was set up here. But it’s a right-wing trick to focus on the few abuses and argue they are widespread and typical, when they are neither. True, these arrangements will never function perfectly, but we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, as every Christian knows.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Let’s hope that we get a break from this bunch of wannabe dictators.
There are no boundaries to their cynicism. Who else could come up with a policy during a cost of living crisis to reward the top 1% of earners and sell it as a measure to stop doctors retiring.
If that was the intention why doesn’t it just apply to doctors?
And then they weigh in on Lineker completely ignoring the fact that ReesMogg and others were calling the EU out as Nazis during the Brexit campaign.
And our old friend Bucks is happy to join the pack of hyenas. Whatever happened to his politics of envy arguments and free market economics?
Clearly they don’t apply to anyone who criticises his Tory Government.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Braverman just cancelled the BBC and any media not of the supportive right: ‘Come on down GBNews, Telegraph and Mail. Join me on my historic trip of shithousery!!’
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/suella-braverman-rwanda-immigration-visit-b2303410.html
3 users thanked author for this post.
A typical good piece from Kenan Malik:
1 user thanked author for this post.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.