Gary Lineker (moved)

[1949threepence]

7 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Oh but he did - if you read his tweet, he clearly used the word 'language'. However, he was also criticising the government policy, that I will admit.

Thank you for making my point for me.

I did say 1933 and 34, which were the first two years of Nazi government - pre-1933 is not relevant.

Two, both by the Home Secretary: one that we were being "invaded" by the migrants in small boats (who are clearly desperate people, as I can't see any other reason for risking the lives of themselves and their families crossing a dangerous stretch of water in overcrowded inflatables); two, that she would be ecstatically happy to see the first plane load of migrants heading for Rwanda.

Still waiting for a 1930's pronouncement from a German official, with which to compare. I also asked this question on a political forum and nobody can answer. Hence I assume they don't have a clue what was actually said or by whom, back then. I wonder if Gary knows? Do you? Have you looked?

Pre 1933 is relevant as Lineker never drew any distinction between the separate parts of the 1930's. 

[oldcopper]

1 hour ago, DrLarry said:

I am not that sure that conflation is a aspect of rhetoric that can be predominantly in the lap of the left! 

He's not saying conflation is wrong, he's saying this example of conflation is wrong.

An easy to spot difference I would have thought.

 

 

[1949threepence]

2 hours ago, DrLarry said:

I am not that sure that conflation is a aspect of rhetoric that can be predominantly in the lap of the left! 

I'm sorry to say it is when it comes to comparisons of such absurdity, they are too farcical to even laugh at.

2 hours ago, DrLarry said:

Do you not think that when claims are  more the idea of the early days of the rise of fascism in Germany  rather than seeking exact words?  The ideology rather than specific statements.   Historical end points dictating the missing specifics.  But  I am sure a scholar of the  politics  could state references of the kind you are seeking  there had been an interesting drama on radio 4 in the last few weeks on the rise of the Nazi party perhaps he had been listening to that and took the reference from the drama which may or may not have been based on hard evidence. 

So then he should say precisely what the comparison is - something he didn't do even when tackled about it. Until that's done, then I don't accept there is any meaningful comparison.

Moreover, let's not forget one overarching point. So many want to come to the UK in the 2020's. So many wanted to leave nazi Germany in the 1930's. That one FACTUAL comparison should tell you all you need to know about comparative nazi rhetoric. 

 

[oldcopper]

20 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

Conflation in terms of rhetoric is usually perceived  with a   somewhat  negative trait usually a person's belief or conviction merged in an idea to attempt to strengthen its meaning.  A belief structure in the idea is usually held strongly in favour of one particular point of view over another and yes all sides on a spectrum of ideas conflate one sides view over another.  It is, as you say  not wrong from one side but less right from the other sides perspective,    

 

it is never easy to assume what is meant by someone, you have decided wrongly for example that my statement is critical   whereas my expectation of the sentence was simply to state that conflation exists for both sides.  It is afterall a pretty new word .  

Interesting word salad cut and pasted no doubt. Your comment hasn't got anything to do with being "critical", but it implied that "both sides do it so it's no big deal" Thus rather missing the point.

And of course no one's talking about the concept of conflation per se, they're talking about what has been conflated and whether it is appropriate. That was the whole point of this Lineker story. If you can't see that.....

 

[oldcopper]

7 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

your process may be to cut and paste , mine to write something as I understood it then went back and edited it , so perhaps it is less coherent than meat and two veg,  as you say more akin to a salad.  Please dont make assumptions about my methodology you have no idea of my process so please dont assume you do 

you seem to be a pretty opinionated member caught up in your own clarity on so many things .  If you wish to shut down a conversation then perhaps you should just elect to do that by contacting the administrator, but for me the point of entering this "domain " to to add to a conversation piece .  Apart from the aspects of collecting I find interest in these discussions outside numismatics are sometimes enjoyable to read but have little interest in many topics.   In most conversations there will always be a degree to which the topic meanders apologies if that bothers you.  I suppose I read too much Plato at school 

Meander away - but don't take offense when someone points out that what you are saying is not relevant to the thread. You carry on firing away with your definitions of "conflating" though.

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, DrLarry said:

I am a little bewildered as to why anyone would want to risk their lives to come to the UK at all to be honest.  It is not as if our quality of life screams across the world most of the systems and institutions are broken and are less and less likely to offer much to any immigrant......but perhaps stories   of British "greatness" last longer than the reality.  I have lived in many countries around the world where the sense of contentment seems a lot higher than many of the people I live close to in the north east of England 

 

Well you say that, but it should be noted that asylum seekers are being fast tracked into housing via a dream offer to private landlords, made by the government, via SERCO. See the link.

This is at the expense of many people already here, who are suffering because of the severe shortage of private rental opportunities these days.

SERCO link    

[TomGoodheart]

8 hours ago, DrLarry said:

Do you not think that when claims are  more the idea of the early days of the rise of fascism in Germany  rather than seeking exact words?  The ideology rather than specific statements.   Historical end points dictating the missing specifics.  But  I am sure a scholar of the  politics  could state references of the kind you are seeking  there had been an interesting drama on radio 4 in the last few weeks on the rise of the Nazi party perhaps he had been listening to that and took the reference from the drama which may or may not have been based on hard evidence. 

What a fascinating thread. I'm just going to pop this here. Written by the writer Michael Rosen. Which I found interesting.

[Peckris 2]

Thank you Tom, for the research that I  didn't have the energy to do.

[1949threepence]

Skilled though Rosen is, I still don't think there is any realistic comparison between UK 2023 and Germany in the 1930's, and that such comparisons are extremely unfair.

Just to show, this is a picture showing the flight of Jewish people from Germany between 1933 and 1939. The polar opposite to this country, where the argument is about the desperation to get in.

  

[Peckris 2]

7 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Skilled though Rosen is, I still don't think there is any realistic comparison between UK 2023 and Germany in the 1930's, and that such comparisons are extremely unfair.

Just to show, this is a picture showing the flight of Jewish people from Germany between 1933 and 1939. The polar opposite to this country, where the argument is about the desperation to get in.

It's possible that desperate citizens of the world can see through the anti-migrant rhetoric of the Tories, and know that the vast majority of UK people - whichever party they vote for - are decent and compassionate as has been demonstrated so often e.g. towards Ukrainians (but there are very many examples).

[1949threepence]

32 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

I was trying to do some internet search for the likely many 1000's of fascist supporters who migrated into Germany from the various european and southern african countries.  But I sure the number that decided on that journey are small by comparison.  And of course the impact of Nazi germany's programmes did not just focus on the Jewish peoples I am sure many others could not escape because they fell into a category unable to afford the cost of migration ....instead ended in the death camps also 

Oh 100% absolutely. Gay people, gypsies, the mentally disabled etc. Some of them were early casualties.

Anyway, I reckon this is a topic we're never going to get true consensus on, but thanks gents for a reasonable, interesting and civilized debate. 

[oldcopper]

13 hours ago, TomGoodheart said:

What a fascinating thread. I'm just going to pop this here. Written by the writer Michael Rosen. Which I found interesting.

Where do you start on this? It is straight out of the Communist playbook. That wonderful ideology that killed more people in the 20th century than any other ideology. But it will be different next time, honest! 

These illegal migrants are granted asylum because our system is broken, and the political will is not there to deport them, hence all that is needed is the "asylum seeker's" word, often given to him by the human rights lawyer. They'll now have a form to fill in, given several weeks to fill it in (so someone else can help them) and it'll be in English, so no pesky interview with an interviewer expecting the person to speak the language from where they claim to be from. It's a farce - no Albanians should be given asylum for instance. They're living in a democratic country not at war.

This is written by a Marxist, so it is manifestly dishonest - for example the Jews were German citizens who had lived there for generations and centuries when the plan to send them to Madagascar was made. There is no comparison. They weren't illegally entering Germany, knowing they'd be looked after far better than where they came from. And they were targeted specifically for their race - it's laughable that anyone can take this far Left garbage seriously.

And would the Germans have agreed to and obeyed a Madagascan tribunal to rule on whether these people had a right to live in Germany? - if so they'd all have been returned of course as they had every right to live in Germany! As it turned out the Jews would undoubtedly have given their eye tooth to go to Madagascar - because the Nazis were infinitely more terrible than that. Another reason for Gary not to make flip comparisons. Where's Braveman building the death camps then? The Left need to grow up if this is their political weapon.

So if police chiefs say the drug supply is now connected to the people who have come here illegally, then they presumably know what they're talking about. How does anyone get faux-outraged by that? But Michael Rosen knows differently - where does he get his inside information that the police chiefs are making it up. It's nonsense. 

Sweden now has the highest rates of gang crime, violent crime and gun crime in Europe having previously had one of the lowest. But should anyone dare to put their finger on what's causing it, there will be Michael Rosen calling them out as a Nazi. There is always complete denial of reality from the Left. 

[oldcopper]

17 hours ago, DrLarry said:

it is a very difficult subject for many creating problems from all sides .  There is little shortage of housing  and many empty houses in the North East ....but I am not sure there would be much welcome here it is somewhat closed community towards people of difference 

In my limited experience, "people of difference" also form closed communities. I know of three examples that my and other friends' children would never be invited round to ethnic schoolfriend's houses, despite it happening the other way round of course. A shame.

[copper123]

You have to feel sorry for the ones that went to france belgium and the neatherlands

[1949threepence]

52 minutes ago, copper123 said:

You have to feel sorry for the ones that went to france belgium and the neatherlands

Not to mention Norway, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Slovakia and Italy. Although no doubt many in Norway and Denmark subsequently made the passage to neutral Sweden if they got the chance.

 

  

[oldcopper]

For anyone who thinks the Rwanda deal is doing anything in our favour, it is of course not. 

So in return for sending healthy young men to Rwanda, in exchange we will get unhealthy, sick, old and young parentless refugees, many emotionally and psychologically damaged, from other African wars that Rwanda now wants to get rid of. So Africans don't want the burden of looking after other Africans - offload them onto Britain then, and get paid handsomely for it.

And where are all the Albanians etc are going to go when their obviously spurious asylum claims are rejected in Rwanda? - straight back to their mainly peaceful home countries of course. They aren't going to want to stay in Rwanda! No need for Rwanda to sort them out then. 

As HD says in the video - no one tells us this. The whole of the media stay quiet. Once again we're only given one side of the story. 

So why are the Left all up in arms about this? Wouldn't this news show how humanitarian and compassionate the government are, and why doesn't the government parade their virtue over this? Well, because the general public are stupid but not that stupid.

I wonder what Michael Rosen thinks. Is he prepared to make a financial contribution to the further burden the NHS is going to be under for this charade?

[azda]

On 3/8/2023 at 5:08 PM, Nick said:

Because it is the national broadcaster that we are forced to pay for, on the basis that it stays impartial.

Yet it’s used by the Govt as a propoganda arm, therefor not impartial

[Menger]

1 hour ago, DrLarry said:

  I would rather the issue of impartiality was not the main focus as I have said I would rather a person give analysis but that is not what people want.  

 I don't think any impartially is deliberate.  Rather, analogous to a fish in water: a particular worldview and value set at the BBC (and many other establishment institutions) has become so pervasive that it has ceased to be perceived as a particular worldview and value set at all. Except by the half of the country that don’t share it. That is a problem for a license fee model - hence why the top brass were keen to mute Gary. 

[Menger]

46 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

But that is just normal I have no children and have to contribute to many aspects of life to which I only indirectly benefit.  I don't begrudge either it is all part of citizenship.  So I suppose the half  that dont share an opinion have to take the hit on the licence fee until such a time we decide on a different formula.  But I doubt we will decide 

I don’t think people begrudge paying for what they don’t directly benefit from so much as paying for something that they feel condescends them.  
 

You may be right. Perhaps nothing will be done.  Or the BBC may just fade away. However, I fear that the Garry episode has emboldened; it may double down - then go with a pop! 

[oldcopper]

21 hours ago, azda said:

Yet it’s used by the Govt as a propoganda arm, therefor not impartial

As soon as the government message is globalist and not a party political divergence, the BBC are eagerly complicit. Climate change being due to man-made CO2 for instance, all the lunacy of Net Zero, and no debate was allowed on anything that questioned the government narrative on Covid, lockdowns or vaccines. Furthermore the BBC actively got Facebook to close down forums for the vaccine injured as "disinformation". Of which my mother nearly died. 

 

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, oldcopper said:

As soon as the government message is globalist and not a party political divergence, the BBC are eagerly complicit. Climate change being due to man-made CO2 for instance, all the lunacy of Net Zero, and no debate was allowed on anything that questioned the government narrative on Covid, lockdowns or vaccines. Furthermore the BBC actively got Facebook to close down forums for the vaccine injured as "disinformation". Of which my mother nearly died. 

 

The irony being that less than 50 years ago, the BBC were discussing whether a new ice age was on the way. I hope they will not be allowed to forget that, along with the long term succour they gave to sex abusers like Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris, then sacking John Lydon (Johnny Rotten as his punk name went) for exposing Savile - meaning (shock horror), that the BBC do get it badly wrong, and most certainly can't be relied upon as a font of all knowledge and information.  

With regard to climate change "deniers" or "denialists", whatever, I think the term is open to abuse, since an increase in global temperature is a hard fact. The point at discussion is precisely why, and here the narrative is entirely one way, with all other possibilities deliberately squeezed out of the conversation. Commentators with alternative theories being disallowed any platform. That's not just the BBC, it's virtually everywhere. Although GB News did have a fascinating hour long debate between two opposing sides on the matter, last Summer. That was so refreshing. 

The vaccine issue is another matter entirely. I agree that at the start of the pandemic, a vaccine was essential, and that the benefits then outweighed the risks. Moreover, given the sheer mass scale of vaccinations, and the speed of development, inevitably there would be many people who were damaged and killed by it. Although the vast majority (probably > 99%), suffered no serious and/or long term side effects. But again, the term "anti vaxxer" is being badly abused and does not reflect reality, since those who are now questioning the efficacy of the vaccine, are not against ALL vaccines. Just the covid one. Personally I can't see the point in suppressing debate on the issue, especially now that covid has turned largely from tiger to pussycat. Just let people have their say. OFCOM/you tube don't need to exclude programmes discussing the vaccine. 

As far as "net zero", I believe the UK are virtually the only place on Earth pursuing it with such messianic zeal and imposing absurdly tight arbitrary deadlines on its introduction.

If the advocates of climate change being 100% due to Co2 emissions, are so convinced of the scientific accuracy of their arguments, why are they seemingly so worried about other elements to the debate being allowed into the official narrative? I don't get it.     

 

 

  

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by 1949threepence

[Menger]

1 hour ago, DrLarry said:

we had not developed the herd immunity which the vaccines provided

Hmmm. Didn’t infection rates increase after the jab roll out?  Most people I know (except myself) got it only after being vaccinated. 

Personally I know nobody who had any major issue with Covid, but I do know half a dozen people who developed problems after the vaccine - including POTS, Mast Cell Activation Syndrome, hypotension, hearing loss, palpitations, placental abruption.  So my sense is the roll out to everyone (not just the vulnerable, like my mum) was reckless. More politics than science.

However, temporal correlation is not causation, and anecdote is statistically irrelevant, so please take my observations with a pinch of salt. Perhaps it was all safe and effective just as planned … 
 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Menger

[oldcopper]

1 hour ago, DrLarry said:

I am sorry that it hit your mother hard but it is a simple reality that any medical intervention involving a vaccine against any pathogen will , considering the millions if not billions inoculated, have a negative impact on a few percent.  The human immune system is too varied to create something that is 100% perfect.  Covid took many millions and likely many more if we had not developed the herd immunity which the vaccines provided.  There will always be a small number who choose not to be given vaccine and for those they have to face their own conscience to themselves and other for whom they represent a vector of potential infection. If you are a climate change denialist or at least do not believe it to be anthropocentric again there are millions who can sit alongside you and I am sure you all can debate on global platforms talking to each other , perhaps in the 90's you would have all had a greater platform.  But I think it best considering the overwhelming scientific opinion that we have significantly contributed to it that the platforms are reduced for that globally marginal group.  As a Geologist I have observed eons of climate changes and would rather we take cautious approaches to our destructive habits, but if humans are reduced in total number that is fine (by me)  but there is a whole world full of other species I'd rather not see reduced further by insane human activity.  

 

the debate on these issues I agree can enable people to make changes and perhaps the BBC have tried to enable the madness of the climate denialists over time to talk usually the outcome is the same we are to be kept on a track towards net zero if for no other reason that is it efficient to do so, like an insurance policy safety for the future.  I would I think (personally) be willing to ring the BBC complaints line to record a complaint if they used valuable air time to give too much credibility to an unqualified individual giving their opinion without substantial evidence.  

 

I accept that you may not be a climate  denialist, or an anti vax or anti net zero contributor and may be just making those as examples of the kind of debate examples  you might like to see on the BBC, my apologies if I have argued that you are. 

Weren't we told the vaxes were "safe and effective". Wrong on both counts. as soon as Omicron appeared they were of little and rapidly diminishing effectiveness.

And I'd love someone to tell me what a "climate change denialist" is and why are they "mad"? It's a flip phrase but I think it means that you question any, and not necessarily all, of the following three points:

(1)  Is climate change/warming happening? I'll answer that - probably from measurements, but at a much slower rate than all the forecasts from all those experts over the last few decades. And why are we not told of any beneficial effects if it is, like increasing vegetation in colder climes? 

(2) Is it directly due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 0.031% of the atmosphere to 0.038%? Man produces 3% of CO2 produced annually - the other 97% is produced naturally. And is there any proof for this correlation of increased CO2 to global warming? 

(3) Is the solution of changing from a reliable, controllable, storable and concentrated energy supply to a weather-dependent, intermittent, uncontrollable and non-storable energy supply the correct one? Especially as the energy use and size of an economy are pretty strongly related? And at present wind and solar contribute from less that 1% to circa 10% of our total energy consumption (ie between <5 and 50% of our electricity consumption). So when the wind doesn't blow in Winter we'll need nuclear provision for all our transport, all our central heating and hot water, all our manufacturing industry and construction industries (which we won't have by then due to too little reliable energy) etc etc. How many nuclear power stations will we need for that, small modular ones or otherwise. And how's that construction plan going at the moment?

And after 15-20 years most of these wind and solar devices will need replacing, but we can't recycle them very easily because guess what - that'll require a humungus amount of energy!!

So the people who worry about this last point are the mad ones?

if you believe in all of the above, shouldn't you be losing sleep over China? - it burnt 300 million extra tons of coal (the biggest CO2 emitter of any fossil fuel to amount of energy produced) last year to bring it's annual consumption to over 3 billion tons of coal. But no one seems to blink an eyelid about that. 

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by oldcopper

[oldcopper]

27 minutes ago, Menger said:

Hmmm. Didn’t infection rates increase after the jab roll out?  Most people I know (except myself) got it only after being vaccinated. 

Personally I know nobody who had any major issue with Covid, but I do know half a dozen people who developed problems after the vaccine - including POTS, Mast Cell Activation Syndrome, hypotension, hearing loss, palpitations, placental abruption.  So my sense is the roll out to everyone (not just the vulnerable, like my mum) was reckless. More politics than science.

However, temporal correlation is not causation, and anecdote is statistically irrelevant, so please take my observations with a pinch of salt. Perhaps it was all safe and effective just as planned … 
 

The weekly Public Health Agency reports were shelved about a year ago, but they were showing the increasing trend that vaccinated people were becoming far more likely to be infected than unvaccinated. The PHA authors were at pains to suggest this might be down to behavioural differences between the two groups, but that was pure speculation, as they couldn't of course admit the other explanation. Perhaps the shelving and the observed trend were connected?

[oldcopper]

38 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

The irony being that less than 50 years ago, the BBC were discussing whether a new ice age was on the way. I hope they will not be allowed to forget that, along with the long term succour they gave to sex abusers like Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris, then sacking John Lydon (Johnny Rotten as his punk name went) for exposing Savile - meaning (shock horror), that the BBC do get it badly wrong, and most certainly can't be relied upon as a font of all knowledge and information.  

With regard to climate change "deniers" or "denialists", whatever, I think the term is open to abuse, since an increase in global temperature is a hard fact. The point at discussion is precisely why, and here the narrative is entirely one way, with all other possibilities deliberately squeezed out of the conversation. Commentators with alternative theories being disallowed any platform. That's not just the BBC, it's virtually everywhere. Although GB News did have a fascinating hour long debate between two opposing sides on the matter, last Summer. That was so refreshing. 

The vaccine issue is another matter entirely. I agree that at the start of the pandemic, a vaccine was essential, and that the benefits then outweighed the risks. Moreover, given the sheer mass scale of vaccinations, and the speed of development, inevitably there would be many people who were damaged and killed by it. Although the vast majority (probably > 99%), suffered no serious and/or long term side effects. But again, the term "anti vaxxer" is being badly abused and does not reflect reality, since those who are now questioning the efficacy of the vaccine, are not against ALL vaccines. Just the covid one. Personally I can't see the point in suppressing debate on the issue, especially now that covid has turned largely from tiger to pussycat. Just let people have their say. OFCOM/you tube don't need to exclude programmes discussing the vaccine. 

As far as "net zero", I believe the UK are virtually the only place on Earth pursuing it with such messianic zeal and imposing absurdly tight arbitrary deadlines on its introduction.

If the advocates of climate change being 100% due to Co2 emissions, are so convinced of the scientific accuracy of their arguments, why are they seemingly so worried about other elements to the debate being allowed into the official narrative? I don't get it.     

 

 

  

 

Considering the average age of death from Covid is and always was 82, and the victims almost invariably had various co-morbidities such as obesity, the authorities initial idea of vaccinating the at risk elderly seemed reasonable.

The rolling it out to other age groups is incomprehensible though, based on spurious transmission/infection theories for which there has never been any evidence. Pfizer for one never claimed their vaccine had any effect on either transmission or infection, it just mitigated the symptoms. But you wouldn't go and see your granny if you had flu-like symptoms anyway. 

It's worth seeing Andrew Bridgen (available on his YT channel) empty the Commons last Friday before making some damning observations from the government's own data about the current risk/benefit of continuing the booster programme. An eye opener, but no one debates or debunks what he is saying, which tells the story really.