MOTD thread

[Sid Tottenham]

Do politicians live in the real world ?

No.
Guess I should elaborate.
You can't lure me out of this bush that easily though.

 

[AtoubaToothpaste]

Listen to the two minutes this takes and tell me the language used isn't fascistic.

Two problems with that:

One, the caller took a general term 'migrant' to one very singular and loaded word 'Jew', changing the very context of the quote. That is disingenuous.

Two, the caller didn't compare it to any reference from 1930 Germany.

People are taking some very vague notions and ratcheting it u to full-on Nazi genocide. I find that rather troubling, even though I do not agree with the Tories, much less Braverman.

 

[AtoubaToothpaste]

No. I clearly said no such thing. Neither did Lineker fwiw. The Tories are pandering to the far right with these policies and rhetoric. They’re playing a very dangerous game.

You said "Just as a point of reference. The Nazis targeted immigrants too and spoke of invasions of Slavs etc etc."

Why? If you're not trying to compare the Tories to actual genocidal Nazis, then what purpose is your point of reference?

 

[AtoubaToothpaste]

I don't think anyone's suggesting that.

But all signs of fascistic policies and tendencies need to be called out so they can be nipped in the bud. If that continues to happen, then we don't have to worry that it'll get out of hand under this or any future government.

I agree, but is wanting to secure one's borders and protect its population fascistic? You would surely think that of all the other countries that have stringent immigration policy too, no? What exactly do you find about the boat ban fascistic?

 

[Tucker]

Blair/Labour did exactly the same with Sir John Birt. It's pretty much par for the course to appoint someone sympathetic to your cause to lead the "impartial BBC" imo.

Birt's Labour past revealed as fight for succession hots up

A final bout of campaigning before the appointment of the next director-general of the BBC saw the incumbent, Sir John Birt, revealed yesterday as a former member of the Labour party.

www.theguardian.com

Did you read the article Trix? Birt was appointed by the BBC board during the term of John Major as prime minister. Blair had nothing to do with it. He wasn’t a government appointee like Sharp has been as Chairman of the BBC board. Dyke, who succeeded him has donated to the Labour Party in the past, but he declared that before applying for the role, and again was appointed by the board, not the government.

Birt was a member of the Labour Party until he resigned in 1992 before taking up the role. That’s very different from Sharp’s position now, having helped the man who appointed him get an £800’000 loan. He then hid this from the DCMS committee that scrutinised his appointment. Whereas Tim Davie, who in fairness was appointed by the bbc board (under pressure from an aggressive and hostile to the license fee government) was chairman of the Fulham conservatives and stood for parliament twice.

This is probably best for the politics thread, but the way the BBC has been bullied and threatened by this government has been really unhealthy for its political impartiality and news coverage. The furore with Lineker has put this under the spotlight. Personally I don’t see how Sharp in particular can stay in the job. And with with the mess Davie has made he should go too.

 

[Marty]

Two problems with that:

One, the caller took a general term 'migrant' to one very singular and loaded word 'Jew', changing the very context of the quote. That is disingenuous.

Two, the caller didn't compare it to any reference from 1930 Germany.

People are taking some very vague notions and ratcheting it u to full-on Nazi genocide. I find that rather troubling, even though I do not agree with the Tories, much less Braverman.

But that's the whole point. The language used about migrants is language we would abhor if it were used about Jews. That is why the comparison is valid, not because of any direct quotes from the 1930s.

I can't explain it better than that.

 

[Tucker]

You said "Just as a point of reference. The Nazis targeted immigrants too and spoke of invasions of Slavs etc etc."

Why? If you're not trying to compare the Tories to actual genocidal Nazis, then what purpose is your point of reference?

Someone was trying to incorrectly make the point that the Nazi’s only targeted German Jews.

Even so, simply drawing a comparison in how two different governments dehumanise immigrants doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that I think the current Tory government are going to start committing genocide.

I can think their rhetoric is dangerous and immoral without thinking they’ll do that.

Fact is though that they are pandering to dangerous far right groups. We’ve already seen far right terrorists bombing asylum processing facilities. We’ve also seen protests and riots at asylum hotels by a far right group committed to the forced deportation of all non whites. It was only a couple of weeks ago, that the vice chairman of the Tory party described those same protestors as “ordinary family men.”

As I said above they’re playing a dangerous game.

 

[Trix]

Did you read the article Trix? Birt was appointed by the BBC board during the term of John Major as prime minister. Blair had nothing to do with it. He wasn’t a government appointee like Sharp has been as Chairman of the BBC board. Dyke, who succeeded him has donated to the Labour Party in the past, but he declared that before applying for the role, and again was appointed by the board, not the government.

Birt was a member of the Labour Party until he resigned in 1992 before taking up the role. That’s very different from Sharp’s position now, having helped the man who appointed him get an £800’000 loan. He then hid this from the DCMS committee that scrutinised his appointment. Whereas Tim Davie, who in fairness was appointed by the bbc board (under pressure from an aggressive and hostile to the license fee government) was chairman of the Fulham conservatives and stood for parliament twice.

This is probably best for the politics thread, but the way the BBC has been bullied and threatened by this government has been really unhealthy for its political impartiality and news coverage. The furore with Lineker has put this under the spotlight. Personally I don’t see how Sharp in particular can stay in the job. And with with the mess Davie has made he should go too.

I'll be honest mate I've never seen the BBC as impartial and I am very much for the abolition of the License fee. As you say though probably for another thread. I can just remember at the time there was a big furore about it and also the guy that followed him, can't remember his name.

 

[AtoubaToothpaste]

But that's the whole point. The language used about migrants is language we would abhor if it were used about Jews. That is why the comparison is valid, not because of any direct quotes from the 1930s.

I can't explain it better than that.

I understand the argument, but words matter. Words can change context. Are we going to apply the same rules to everything a politician says? You do understand, surely, how changing a vague word to one with history can completely change the context, right? I'm not saying that the change is 'complete' in this way, but there are always going to be commonalities in speech regarding something like migration. It's what and how it is applied that makes the difference. You could do the same thing with Australia's stringent policy -- change a few words and then claim it's like 1930's Germany. I'm sure that could be done across many aspects of government. I personally prefer more accuracy and specificity in language, otherwise it's too easy (dare I say fascistic) to claim someone is saying something they're not and castigate them for it.

 

[AtoubaToothpaste]

Someone was trying to incorrectly make the point that the Nazi’s only targeted German Jews.

Even so, simply drawing a comparison in how two different governments dehumanise immigrants doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that I think the current Tory government are going to start committing genocide.

Fair enough, but that is the logical extension of this thinking. It is entirely possible to criticise the government for their policy without immediately going to the Nazi comparison, because that's only done for one reason.

I can think their rhetoric is dangerous and immoral without thinking they’ll do that.

Of course, and I applaud you for it. We should all be able to utilise free speech. But we should also be cognizant of the consequences of that. In this instance, it was Linekar breaching the BBC rules. Though I"m glad to see Davies admit that there are grey areas and that the policy needs re-working.

Fact is though that they are pandering to dangerous far right groups. We’ve already seen far right terrorists bombing asylum processing facilities. We’ve also seen protests and riots at asylum hotels by a far right group committed to the forced deportation of all non whites. It was only a couple of weeks ago, that the vice chairman of the Tory party described those same protestors as “ordinary family men.”

As I said above they’re playing a dangerous game.

That's an entirely separate issue. I agree that we shouldn't be taking racist groups lightly, but the immigration bill isn't pandering to them; it's dealing with a growing problem. Given we've gone from 800 boats to 45,000 in five years, action has to be taken. If there are groups breaking the law, then they should be dealt with as appropriately too. There are protesters in Dublin also, are you also going to compare their government with 1930's Germany? One doesn't conflate to the other, IMHO.

 

[Tucker]

Fair enough, but that is the logical extension of this thinking. It is entirely possible to criticise the government for their policy without immediately going to the Nazi comparison, because that's only done for one reason.

Of course, and I applaud you for it. We should all be able to utilise free speech. But we should also be cognizant of the consequences of that. In this instance, it was Linekar breaching the BBC rules. Though I"m glad to see Davies admit that there are grey areas and that the policy needs re-working.


That's an entirely separate issue. I agree that we shouldn't be taking racist groups lightly, but the immigration bill isn't pandering to them; it's dealing with a growing problem. Given we've gone from 800 boats to 45,000 in five years, action has to be taken. If there are groups breaking the law, then they should be dealt with as appropriately too. There are protesters in Dublin also, are you also going to compare their government with 1930's Germany? One doesn't conflate to the other, IMHO.

A reply to this is probably better suited to the politics thread so this is the last I’ll talk of it here. Needless to say I strongly disagree with your last section. It does pander to the far right, it’s not designed to solve the issue in any way shape or form. All it will do is cause division and controversy as it’s dragged through the courts because it’s against international law. This isn’t by accident it’s through design, because while it’s being held up in the courts this government will whine and bleat about lefty lawyers and Starmer blocking the bill. They’ll say they’re the only people who can stand up for Britain blah blah blah.

The whole boats thing is a red herring anyway. We’ve seen the numbers there skyrocket yes. But we’ve seen the numbers coming through the channel tunnel fall to almost zero thanks to better technology scanning lorries and cars etc. As well as the government systematically closing down all the official routes bar one or two. The Asylum issue is a complex one, and there needs to be a proper well thought out and compassionate solution. The money is clearly there too since Sunak just gave the French half a billion to try and lay on some more guards and build a detention centre.

It won’t be solved by dehumanising the asylum seekers or building a false narrative that they’re all breaking the law or criminals from Albania.

As for protests in Dublin that’s got very little to do with me. I don’t read about Irish politics and I’m criticising my own government for pandering to these lunatics. Are they calling for the deportation of non whites? Is the chairman of the ruling Irish party praising them?

If you want to discuss it further I’m happy to in the politics thread.

 

[the yid]

On celebs , think Glenda Jackson , Arnold Schwarzenegger, Clint Eastwood to name just three politically involved celebs might disagree with you , in a democracy anybody should be able to express their view.

Yeah I 100% get and agree with you but brandishing people stupid, morons, racist, Nazi like these people do because of there opinion is wrong in my opinion. I'm a slightly left leaning person and think the way both sides label people with a different opinion to them is wrong and shuts down any meaningful debate on these serious issues.

 

[beats1]

Blair/Labour did exactly the same with Sir John Birt. It's pretty much par for the course to appoint someone sympathetic to your cause to lead the "impartial BBC" imo.

Birt's Labour past revealed as fight for succession hots up

A final bout of campaigning before the appointment of the next director-general of the BBC saw the incumbent, Sir John Birt, revealed yesterday as a former member of the Labour party.

www.theguardian.com

Not even close, the difference is that as Emily Maitlis highlighted, the difference the BBC when they used to get calls from government but they were ignored. For the first time they had to succumb to the government


Robbie Gibb was this governments head of communications, now he is on the BBC board setting the agenda for the BBC and named by several individual in forcing people to change stories and pressuring them on what they say

Then the worst thing is, that LABOUR CLASHED WITH BBC, over the WMD, THE BBC had gone in hard which led to the suicide of David Kelly

This is a false equivalence

 

[JamieSpursCommunityUser]

It's a bollocks distinction, Phil and we all know it because if Lineker wanted to be more nuanced he wouldn't have gone with "reminiscent of 1930's Germany".

The laughing emjois are because you're running a laughable thesis. Everyone knows what Lineker meant and why he used the exact words he used.

The real issue is that people like yourself, and @'O Zio and @Thenewcat know it's problematic to casually invoke 1930's Germany because it's pretty goddam offensive to a lot of people who were murdered by the Nazis. You don't want to be problematic but you also think the government are acting like Nazi's and don't want to water down that self-righteousness. Fair enough. Hyperbole has its place. Gets the message across. But you remain uncomfortable...

Which leaves all of you making a completely nonsensical circular argument whereby Lineker isn't calling the Government Nazi's but is also calling them Nazi's but you know there's and important distinction that you plebs don't get but we do ...

There is no distinction. Lineker wrote what he wrote. A lot of us agree with his sentiment. Some of us are uncomfortable with this choice of analogy. Some think it's total bollocks. But please don't insult your intelligence and mine with this "important distinction" bollocks. I'm not litigating Lineker and you're not his lawyer (afaik)

Anyway - he should never have been stood down and the Govt shouldn't be interfering with BBC but that's a proper and more meaningful debate.

In fairness Lineker was calling out the language - "Invasion" and "Swarm" - as that used by Fascists and Autocrats.

Language which continued even AFTER we'd had a domestic terrorist attack and some fairly punchy protests outside of migrant centres.

We can talk about the choice of analogy, and perhaps had he known he'd be plastered over the front pages and attacked by the entire Govt all week perhaps he might have chosen a different analogy.

But here we are - living in a country where our Govt and Tabloids single out one tweet and attack it relentlessly for 5 days, rather than talk about their actual flag ship policy. Because they wanted to incite a culture war and turn around the polls.

So now many are inferring Nazi's because the media echo chamber keeps saying Nazi Germany Nazi Germany Nazi Germany, and thus feel defensive about supporting the policy. I get that.

But Lineker didn't call those who SUPPORT the policy as Fascists or Nazis.

He called out BRAVERMAN, fairly in my view, and perhaps the likes of Jendrick who openly admits treating Ukranians refugees as more deserving than Iraqi and Afghan refugees (who we did actually invade).

 

[McFlash]

By making these comparisons are you suggesting that you honestly foresee the Tories going on to commit genocide in the order of millions because they want to stop illegal boat crossings? (FWIW, I hate the Tories, but these arguments seem crazy to me).

Of course he's bloody not and nor is anyone else.
Making a statement such as this means that your completely missing the point here, it's really not that dramatic.

 

[McFlash]

I'm intrigued; which language exactly is that you (and others) think is reminiscent of 1930's Germany? Are there any quotes you could share that would help us make this comparison?

I would suggest labelling minorities as criminals, enemies of the state and stating that it's an invasion of this country is pretty similar to such hyperbole that was used early in the Nazi party reign.
I'm not going to go to the effort of finding individual quotes because that's an unnecessary waste of time.
We were all taught about it at school.

 

[luRRka]

 

[DarwinSpur]

In fairness Lineker was calling out the language - "Invasion" and "Swarm" - as that used by Fascists and Autocrats.

Language which continued even AFTER we'd had a domestic terrorist attack and some fairly punchy protests outside of migrant centres.

We can talk about the choice of analogy, and perhaps had he known he'd be plastered over the front pages and attacked by the entire Govt all week perhaps he might have chosen a different analogy.

But here we are - living in a country where our Govt and Tabloids single out one tweet and attack it relentlessly for 5 days, rather than talk about their actual flag ship policy. Because they wanted to incite a culture war and turn around the polls.

So now many are inferring Nazi's because the media echo chamber keeps saying Nazi Germany Nazi Germany Nazi Germany, and thus feel defensive about supporting the policy. I get that.

But Lineker didn't call those who SUPPORT the policy as Fascists or Nazis.

He called out BRAVERMAN, fairly in my view, and perhaps the likes of Jendrick who openly admits treating Ukranians refugees as more deserving than Iraqi and Afghan refugees (who we did actually invade).

I don't disagree with any of that.

All I ever said noted was that when Lineker (or anyone for that matter) says "language reminiscent of 1930's Germany" what they mean is "Nazi's" and it's preposterous to suggest otherwise. It is being inferred because it is implicit.

Personally I think the ludicrous response to his tweet by Tories has helped amplify his message.

But I also do wish people would lay off Nazi anologies. It is quite offensive to some people and there are perfectly good alternatives - not least Enoch Powell whose language probably better describes what the Tories are doing.

 

[tototoner]

He's one of the good guys

 

[AtoubaToothpaste]

Of course he's bloody not and nor is anyone else.
Making a statement such as this means that your completely missing the point here, it's really not that dramatic.

Then there's no need to keep bringing up the Nazi's, because that's what is being spoken about here when referring to 1930's German. Not to mention all the references to the far-right etc... There's a way of talking about one's disagreement with a policy without going down that route because there's only one reason to do it.