Rolta

5 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I think the main point for all of us who want to apply context to this. 1) I don't really pay much attention to the statements from a politically bankrupt lame duck government who's remaining time in power we count now in number of months. Why? that's because we live in the longest running democratic country in the entire world. I know we will have a peaceful transition of power when we elect the next government. Now compare that to your examples of facism in the 1930s. The context couldn't be more different. 

Anyway, the main main point is that the state broadcaster, with its compromised grouping of Tory stooges managing the organisation, shouldn't be shutting down dissent in private social media, particularly when its position is so clearly in thrall to the government and so clearly selectively done in the government's favour. That's stage 1, forgetting any possible bleakness in the future.

It's bullshit.

1 minute ago, CVByrne said:

I think the main point for all of us who want to apply context to this. 1) I don't really pay much attention to the statements from a politically bankrupt lame duck government who's remaining time in power we count now in number of months. Why? that's because we live in the longest running democratic country in the entire world. I know we will have a peaceful transition of power when we elect the next government. Now compare that to your examples of facism in the 1930s. The context couldn't be more different. 

You can probably take that comfortable position in the UK for now—but then look at the USA. Then zoom out and look at Putin's influence on even the most basic of discourses, and then look at China. Imagine some of the rhetoric coming out of the GOP becoming a part of life in the white house. Look at Fox News pandering to their base, telling them what they want to hear. Look at people like Steve Bannon jetting around the globe networking with other hard-right, nigh on fascists. Then look at how easy it is to manipulate people on social media. Read reports from the Young Republican events where they openly talk down (ok paraphrase) democracy.

We're not in as good a position as you think. It's the same here in Spain. Democracy is on a knife's edge—maybe it always will be.

Remember, they say history repeats.

12 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I'm a pragmatist and a centrist. I have political views that would be deemed leftist and views that would be considered right wing. At the core I feel liberal western democracy and capitalism is the most effective political system we've got, that changing of a political system has and will always lead to violent civil war and a plethora of unintended consequences. So I think we look to fix as best we can the within the system we've got.

To me society should be equality of opportunity. By that I mean for every child born in this country we should have a system that as best as possible gives that child as equal a chance as a child born into extreme wealth. For this I've a cross section of things that would be considered extreme socialism. All schools and 3rd level education be completely free and no existence of any privatised systems. All progress should be meritocracy, so the brightest people with as best we can in terms of equality of education get to achieve as full education as the state can provide. I also don't believe in inheritance, I don't believe we should allow amassing of wealth by one generation be handed to the next. So taxing wealth not income and significantly higher capacity to enforce a higher inheritance tax. Wile of course I believe we should have a state funded health system of a high standard and efficient. 

The flip to that is. People who become wealthy by their hard work and skills should be happy to enjoy all the riches they have earned. If someone creates a successful company that employs countless people all of this created wealth is a benefit to our society as the taxes for this run our health services and education system. All the wealth accumulation is taxed as we tax wealth. Handing large wealth to the persons children is also taxed. The core of capitalism is the freedom for anyone to succeed.

For the record, I also pretty much agree with this. But it's probably the point of view of most of the average western world really (maybe not the US). But just like the 1930s in every country that succombed to fascistic revolution, there are very influential voices in government and the media who seem to have had enough of paying taxes. Neolliberalism has a lot to answer for. Just like then, the language from the right is becoming hyped up and exaggerated—as Braverman showed this week (and every week). Lineker had a fair comment and shouldn't be getting shut down by the state broadcaster in his own personal social media. Bar social media's existence, and the actual possibility of a revolutionary left (which couldn't be further from having influence) this is the exact creep that began in 1930s in multiple countries—it's identical. The obfuscation of truth, the exaggeration of language.

In fact, it's almost comical—there is no risk of a socialist or communist revolution these days like there was back in the 30s, but the government and its media enablers still concoct a villain to justify their undemocratic language—left blobs, illegal immigrants, lefty-lawyers, woke mind worms, trans people. It's hysteria.

16 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I agree with you. The language is similar to that of 1930s Germany. The intent behind the language couldn't be more different. Also one is about boats of illegal migrants coming to UK (with the undertone about the number of Albanians) while the other was about an ethnic minority of citizens in a country by its own dictatorship government. 

As for swapping "migrant" for "jew". There's lot of similar things where people change "white" to "black" in US for example, the statements suddenly read like white supremist. That's because changing words without any context does in fact completely change the entire meaning. 

First of all imagine if the BBC hadn't cracked down on Lineker, which is what this whole topic is about first and foremost—forget the semantics. The BBC shouldn't be influenced by the government nor from partisan stooges placed within its power structure to do exactly this kind of thing. Also notice how the BBC never uses the 'B' word. It's been cowed into submission. The examples are numerous.

Going into semantics of the rhetoric used by the government, there's plenty to unpack. Did you see when Suella Braverman said that 100 million people could want to come to the UK? It's clearly hyped up, exaggerated demagogery. Same with all the talk about lefty lawyers and lefty civil servants and patriotism and traitors (more the newspapers) and the like. Specifically speaking the exaggerated and inflammatory rhetoric about asylum seekers (75% of people crossing on small boats are granted Asylum and half of what's remaining on appeal) is very much like 1930s Germany. Again, it's demagogery at its most blatant—manipulating the issue to gain favour. That alone is atrocious. The evidence is in front of you.

If you take issue with 1930s Germany, you could extend the whole thing and look at the language in Italy and Spain in their moments before facism too, and the monologuing coming from the Government and its most egregious supporters in the press (Mail, Telegraph, Sun) is nigh on identical. The angle taken by these influential right wing rags and their terminology, the dehumanisation of not just the foreign people, but anyone left of Amber Rudd is exactly the same. I'm not suggesting we're going to end up with Nazi solutes, but this kind of language and use of language is used by governments and people who ultimately do go on to embrace authoritarian ideas—at the very least it makes a mockery that they're interested in democracy.

You're missing more points too—this is all about the state broadcaster, which has been evidently and obviously in the light of day filled with stooges for the government, selectively choosing one voice who opposes them to crack down on while letting their supporters in similar positions do as they wish, and in many cases, actually defending and obfuscating and pandering to them.

18 minutes ago, MachoFantastico said:

I can't stand the BBC, but I also don't care much for Linekar. You'd think there wasn't another sports presenter on the planet who could replace him by the way the news is being reported. I haven't watched MOTD in years, mainly because I find the opinions of Gary, Alan, and co so dull.

Other people have said the same, but nothing you've written is related to the point. 

6 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

Take the phrase I hate Leeds fans

Replace the word fans with a minority or even some majorities.

It's like you're not even thinking for a second before posting. If Braverman had said 'I hate migrants' you'd have a point, but she didn't. The whole point of the comment is the rest of the inflammatory language, which clearly sounds like something from 1930s Germany. It's not the only thing the government are doing that  has authoritarian precedent either and filling up the top echelons of the BBC with their own stooges is a pretty great example, particularly when then, magically, the BBC starts cracking down on one very specific angle of dissent. This is nigh on undeniable. 

The examples of Nick Robinson today and Fiona Bruce on question time add fuel to this fire, but there have been plenty of examples from the BBC over the last few years.

9 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Right wing government stooges get upset at legitimate criticism of things senior politician says, up against someone using an offensive racial slur directly targeted at an individual.

The more I think about it the more **** ridiculous it is to try and use that comparison to play the role of the enlightened centrist.

I'm out of likes, but I agree. What a bizarre statement.

6 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I specifically didn't mention the BBC because the likes of Andy Gray and Big Ron were working for other companies.

It would be impossible to avoid upsetting the left because the ideology sets no boundaries.

Lineker is an "officer and gentleman" so he won't have his honour impugned, they will just pay him off, if it comes to the worst - after all, what's a few million when you get £5bn from the punters.

 

The only person setting no boundaries here seems to be you tbh. If you use 'The left' and 'the ideology' the way you just did there I'm sure you can confirm whatever you want to think. What a boundless statement. In reality there's no ideology, of course, known as 'the left', or 'left', but just as many different types of people and opinions as you find anywhere.

If it makes it easier for you to make sweeping statements go ahead though.

2 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

I know a lot of people views on this ultimately seem to be following political views / alliances but I think this has shades of the palace racism row in that it could have been resolved quickly but has been handled badly by both sides .

the BBC have spoken to Lineker before , he seems to be unrepentant and has dug in , the BBC have been left between a bit of a rock and a hard place and eventually decided to act , possibly due to political pressure possibly to show Lineker and others who is in charge .

Lineker can’t really come back now , someone has to climb down and I don’t see it happening .

 

 

This is bollocks. The BBC aren't between a rock and a hard place. The whole thing is a farce and it's a farce that's only coming from one very obvious direction. You seem inclined to make excuses for them though.

Just for contrast I'm in a hammock in Madrid with my sunglasses on. 

3 hours ago, Designer1 said:

This show has really lost its shine this season. Another pretty drab episode.

I thought it lost its shine the moment the shit version of Boba Fett turned up in season 2. It was awful from that exact moment.

This is a bit of a non-comment made because some people might be amused/interested.

I just watched a YouTube video about a mega-scale scammer (the channel—KiraTV—is pretty entertaining). I was pretty shocked when about halfway through Ezri (and Tammy Abramham) show up hanging out with the guy in Dubai. I imagine they innocently got sucked into his orbit like plenty of other people did—so I'm not suggesting anything untoward.

There was one interesting comment made: apparently the scammer was trying to con a Premier League club out of £100million at one stage (it could have been any club).

Anyway, here it is if anyone is interested:

10 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

It is a very complicated subject agreed, you can be sure my opinions don't come from twitter if it worries you.

What are your sources, specifically? To be fair to KentVillan, the comment you were responding to included two links so you can see exactly where he was coming from.

30 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

What a load of boll***s. You sourced this from the charities who look after them?

I would have thought the criminal gangs who they pay to get here, tell them to head for the English borders, an if they don't kill half there family and kids on the way, they'may be living the dream in a 4 star hotel all expenses paid for a couple of years, that's if they are not criminals themselves and dismiss the system.

How confident are you in your sources—and should you be?

What sources do you base your opinions on for this complicated topic?

10 hours ago, villa4europe said:

JBs punisher more or less confirmed for daredevil born again

No doubt Disney will try but I'm not sure how you do a PG punisher so hopefully Disney finally make something a bit edgier (they wont) and more in line with Netflix excellent violent DD 

I can't remember specifically but some of the TV shows at least I remember being violent beyond what a Pg would allow for. As I say, I can't remember which ones though...maybe Falcon and the Winter Soldier and Moon Knight? 

2 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

 

The penny seems to have dropped…

He's a terrible person.

4 hours ago, Rossco76 said:

It was spectacularly epicly bad though weren’t it…

I’m sure the lad has learnt from it 

He's a Belgian international who made the same mistake as three of our other players have made. When he was in the team before Kamara came back he was playing well and was an important part of some good wins.

22 minutes ago, villakram said:

Personal attacks, charming. 

Language is not universal, it is fundamentally social and cultural. Hence, how some resort to constant bickering and ad hominems to advance a point when something more serious is being discussed.

Perhaps add something useful, e.g., @StefanAVFC sharp point above regarding the clear distinction between ideology (e.g., Russian history people, culture etc.) and political ideology (communism) or we could do freedom and democracy, where everyone gets a chance vs the capitalist monstrosity that is US political culture. Remember during the Idiot Bush years how we continuously told ourselves to hate the government not the American people.

 

Maybe I went in a bit harsh, which I do apologise for, but I think in this instance especially you were being silly.

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

That’s absolutely brilliant

GB News got that email on air suspiciously fast, almost as if they knew what he really meant and decided to exploited his error. 

 

Looks like there was a little video edit there in the middle.

4 hours ago, villakram said:

Careful here in how you interpret this. 

Eradicating Communist ideology didn't mean getting rid of all USSR citizens nor did wanting rid of Corbyns socialist ideology mean eliminating him and his supporters.

Though I am sure there are some who think that way.... language over here and the aggressive way it is used is somewhat different to how things are done in the UK. 

This means nothin regarding how offensive etc. these comments obviously are.

I've said it before but you do chat a lot of bollocks! Your excuse making and mental gymnastics are, as always, a site to behold.

Just now, Tom13 said:

He also gave it away under no pressure on at least two occasions. I think he's so far off this level.

Players give the ball away all the time. I think this kind of comment just comes across as if you'd made your mind up and that you see what you want to see.

Today he played well imo.

1 hour ago, rodders0223 said:

Possible extra curricular activities might explain why he's 24 and runs like he's 34 at times

Judging by your posts after the win it just seems as if your outlet for winning is complaining. He looked good too. 

2 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

25 minutes of passing the ball 25 yards backwards and standing on the halfway line.

Any chance of a sprint? Even on an overload he's just stood there.

I've seen statues run the line more.

Seriously. What is this guy's problem? Absolute headloss?

I thought he looked pretty decent myself. 

As with all the games under Emery he's a different player. Looking great! I had lost faith but now it's all back. Playing like a captain too.