Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sign in to follow this  
copper123

Gary Lineker (moved)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DrLarry said:

They could just show miss Marple all afternoon 

White, female and stale - I don't think so.............................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, secret santa said:

White, female and stale - I don't think so.............................

OK well how about the The best ladies detective agency .... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, secret santa said:

White, female and stale - I don't think so.............................

On a similar vein how about "The Bletchley Circle", white, female......and not so stale.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

On a similar vein how about "The Bletchley Circle", white, female......and not so stale.   

yes that would suffice a good replacement 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2023 at 11:07 PM, Peckris 2 said:

Sorry, but that's totally wrong. 1) he's sport, for which there are much more relaxed rules about impartiality, and 2) he can say what he likes on Twitter, where he's not representing the BBC. Would I say the same if I didn't 100% agree with him? Don't know...

Thinking about it, there's probably a very easy way round all this which would have squared the circle and avoided all the subsequent drama.

The BBC just issues a statement which says that "The views expressed on twitter by Mr Lineker reflect his own personal opinion and are in no way associated with the BBC, which is, and remains, an impartial organisation".

Providing opinions are expressed privately on platforms other than the BBC itself, that might be the most positive and harmonious way forward.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

Thinking about it, there's probably a very easy way round all this which would have squared the circle and avoided all the subsequent drama.

The BBC just issues a statement which says that "The views expressed on twitter by Mr Lineker reflect his own personal opinion and are in no way associated with the BBC, which is, and remains, an impartial organisation".

Providing opinions are expressed privately on platforms other than the BBC itself, that might be the most positive and harmonious way forward.  

yes it would seem quite the best way forward.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

still the Rugby was pretty good 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2023 at 1:24 PM, DrLarry said:

yes it would seem quite the best way forward.  

You're never going to stop individuals having opinions, and some are so strongly held that they will be expressed in a frank and forthright way. It's pointless trying to shut people up, and it will never work. 

I don't personally agree with a lot that Gary comes out with, politically....but, it's his view. We all have them.

As a person, he is a likeable guy.  

I can't help thinking that much of the blame lies with the BBC with a very weak, confused and inconsistent policy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

You're never going to stop individuals having opinions, and some are so strongly held that they will be expressed in a frank and forthright way. It's pointless trying to shut people up, and it will never work. 

I don't personally agree with a lot that Gary comes out with, politically....but, it's his view. We all have them.

As a person, he is a likeable guy.  

I can't help thinking that much of the blame lies with the BBC with a very weak, confused and inconsistent policy. 

A perfect description of this forum...

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope people aren't being unfair to Gary. Full credit to him, Alan and Ian for fearlessly calling out Qatar, boycotting the World Cup and making very telling comparisons between Qatar's treatment of immigrant workers and illegal immigrants, and Britain's treatment of the same under the Tories. 

And good luck to Gary in his tax-dodging wheeze with HMRC - losing out on all that money from Qatar must have been a huge financial hit to him, and he must be upset that the tax he's going to save isn't going to be available for the NHS or some other worthy public cause. Still, it'll be going to a much better cause - himself. Great bloke!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

You're never going to stop individuals having opinions

Nothing wrong with that - all I ask is that these individuals state that it is their opinion, and not issue proclamations as if they're proven undeniable facts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, secret santa said:

Nothing wrong with that - all I ask is that these individuals state that it is their opinion, and not issue proclamations as if they're proven undeniable facts.

Absolutely. 

Assertions are made as though they are fact and not personal opinion. I'm surprised that more people haven't been sued for defamation of character, given what they've stated about various individuals. 

eg: "what you say might be interpreted as racist" (correct) "you're a bigoted racist" (incorrect)  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Absolutely. 

Assertions are made as though they are fact and not personal opinion. I'm surprised that more people haven't been sued for defamation of character, given what they've stated about various individuals. 

eg: "what you say might be interpreted as racist" (correct) "you're a bigoted racist" (incorrect)  

Please enlighten me : in what way is a racist NOT bigoted??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Please enlighten me : in what way is a racist NOT bigoted??

Ask the left - they're the ones I got the working example from.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Please enlighten me : in what way is a racist NOT bigoted??

I guess the modern definition of racism (at least on the left?) focuses on disparities of outcome between racial groups.  This is why, say, “whiteness” (aka bourgeois culture) can be regarded as “racist” - because it is seen as exclusionary of other culture in its effect (not intent). As such, the intent of “racists” is no longer a relevant factor - one can be racist irrespective of intent. So there may be more racists than bigots (I.e., racists who are not bigots) - as bigotry requires an intent to unreasonable and obstinately hold onto bad ideas.
 

Ama wrong? 
 

(Only teasing. Of course racists are bigots. Not least advocates of discrimination policies, quotas and wot not.)

Edited by Menger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Menger said:

I guess the modern definition of racism (at least on the left?) focuses on disparities of outcome between racial groups.  This is why, say, “whiteness” (aka bourgeois culture) can be regarded as “racist” - because it is seen as exclusionary of other culture in its effect (not intent). As such, the intent of “racists” is no longer a relevant factor - one can be racist irrespective of intent. So there may be more racists than bigots (I.e., racists who are not bigots) - as bigotry requires an intent to unreasonable and obstinately hold onto bad ideas.
 

Ama wrong? 
 

(Only teasing. Of course racists are bigots. Not least advocates of discrimination policies, quotas and wot not.)

Obviously, 'racism' as a term is not in itself - as you've pointed out - inherently bigoted; one can discuss racism as an issue in modern society without being bigoted. However, an individual who is racist is, virtually by definition, bigoted: it's not possible to consider one race as inherently superior to another race, or seek to rid one's own culture of a particular race (as has happened to Jews and blacks many times through history), without being so.

This is not a lefty stance - one would find agreement in the UK from not only Communists and all sectors of the Labour and LibDem and SNP and Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein parties, but also the maority of Tories as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which countries rid themselves of blacks throughout history? I know.

It's lucky a certain person can't read this (or so he says) because he would be unable to give me a factual answer, because that would disagree with his dogma..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, secret santa said:

Nothing wrong with that - all I ask is that these individuals state that it is their opinion, and not issue proclamations as if they're proven undeniable facts.

I think most people naturally assume it to be a personal opinion when shared across one’s own personal social media account? I personally, never for a second, believed Gary’s Twitter feed represented the views of the BBC!

And re the final point in your sentence, isn’t this what our political leaders do all the time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

racist is, virtually by definition, bigoted: it's not possible to consider one race as inherently superior to another race, or seek to rid one's own culture of a particular race (as has happened to Jews and blacks many times through history), without being so.

Yup. But here you are using “racism” in its conventional sense.

The whole basis of “racism” in the newfangled sense (which has been adopted by at least the woke left, BLM - and much of the corporate sector in the west - as well as the universities, civil service, military, among others) is that “intent” or “individual belief” (or ideology) is not a relevant. What matters is disparate outcomes (or participation) between racial groups.  That is racist. 

In this way capitalism, the West, golf and the countryside have each been called “racist”.  

I dare say coin collecting is a little racist too by the same metric.

Got to keep up with the times! 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Coinery said:

 I personally, never for a second, believed Gary’s Twitter feed represented the views of the BBC!

I dunno. I suspect the bosses at the beeb are concerned that Gary rather reflects consensus opinion within the organization. They are acutely aware of the political embarrassment of this for their funding - predicated as it is on impartiality - hence their manoeuvres to silence Gary. The BBC staff that circulated the wagons are, like Gary, simply less strategic than the top brass. Surely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Coinery said:

I think most people naturally assume it to be a personal opinion when shared across one’s own personal social media account? I personally, never for a second, believed Gary’s Twitter feed represented the views of the BBC!

And re the final point in your sentence, isn’t this what our political leaders do all the time?

Sadly, I think his twitter feed does represent the vast majority of the BBC. As can be seen in the mass walkouts and subsequent climbdown by the DG. Polls show 75% of people disagree with Lineker's take on this - which shows that the BBC are not representative of the majority of the paying public.

I'm surprised 25% have been so propagandised that they agree with him - open borders are completely unsustainable of course.

Edited by oldcopper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

Sadly, I think his twitter feed does represent the vast majority of the BBC. As can be seen in the mass walkouts and subsequent climbdown by the DG. Polls show 75% of people disagree with Lineker's take on this - which just shows is that the BBC are not representative of the majority of the paying public.

I'm surprised 25% have been so propagandised that they agree with him - open borders are completely unsustainable of course.

I think if he'd just said that he felt the government lacked compassion on the issue, he'd probably have got away with it, and nothing else would have been said. But the left now have this absurd habit of conflating things the government propose regarding immigration, with nazi Germany. Any - even lightweight - student of history knows there is no comparison, and that to do so is an intensely insulting trivialisation of the events back then, to those affected and their successors.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Coinery said:

I think most people naturally assume it to be a personal opinion when shared across one’s own personal social media account? I personally, never for a second, believed Gary’s Twitter feed represented the views of the BBC!

And re the final point in your sentence, isn’t this what our political leaders do all the time?

I entirely accept that GL's tweet cannot in any way be held to be representative of the BBC's views. The problem, as I see it, is that the implication in his tweet that the government is acting in the same way as Nazi Germany did was clearly going to stir up a controversy. As soon as it did, the BBC had two choices. Either censure him, on the grounds that this post was offensive and reflected badly on them, a reasonable position given that the alternative approach would have been the second choice, which was to ignore it, and then watch the headlines screaming that the BBC supports the idea that the Tories are like the Nazis. The BBC were damned whichever way they went.

In my view, on balance they went for the right approach because allowing such a sentiment would be harmful to the corporation. In defence of their position, pretty much any employer expects their employees to not act in a way which is detrimental to the company/business even outside of company time. When employees flout this rule, there are usually consequences. For most people, the impact of their actions are low level and of limited impact. However, when the highest paid and high profile presenter at the BBC is involved, then it becomes a different matter. FWIW, I expect GL to return, probably carry on tweeting on political matters as is his right, but to tone the rhetoric down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

I think if he'd just said that he felt the government lacked compassion on the issue, he'd probably have got away with it, and nothing else would have been said. But the left now have this absurd habit of conflating things the government propose regarding immigration, with nazi Germany. Any - even lightweight - student of history knows there is no comparison, and that to do so is an intensely insulting trivialisation of the events back then, to those affected and their successors.

Fair point, but for Gary to even suggest the government "lack compassion" is a strange take when most if not all dinghy travellers are manifestly not refugees, they aren't fleeing war-torn countries, they're paying their way across Europe, then when in a safe country (France) await unauthorised travel across the channel. 

The obvious point to me is that it is nothing to do with Gary or anyone else's "compassion" - the concept has been shoehorned into a political attack on the Tories. But the Tories have been stupid. There was never a problem deporting illegal immigrants before - every government has done it without anyone blinking an eyelid, including Blair and Brown of course. For some reason the Tories have allowed this to get out of control while promoting pantomime policies like Rwanda that would never work on any large scale, even if they could undertake it. 

The only takeaway from this mess that I can come up with, is that the government actually have no problem with mass illegal economic migration. But just talk tough and pretend they do. The globalists want open borders, the globalists lend us finance, so this happens - at least that hypothesis makes sense, nothing else does.

When there are genuine refugees like Ukrainian women and children, you don't see them hitching a lift across the Channel! There are international frameworks to provide for them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×