Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
East Langton Fox

Gary Lineker steps down from MOTD

By East Langton Fox, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Otis

Otis

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

This is the equivalent of "for those that want him sacked, who replaces Rodgers?"

It really isn't 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Guest bennytwohats

Guest bennytwohats

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, marcymarc666 said:

Well it's not rocket science. A couple years ago it was  a few hundred,  now up to 44,000, throw in more sophisticated boats , word of mouth, cheaper crossing fees.

You'll be talking half a million a year before 2030. Where are they going to be housed ??

The thing is, what’s been a big driver of those numbers is that there is now no safe and legal route for people to apply for asylum. They can only do it once they’re here, and they can’t get here via a legal route - hence they try to cross. If we opened up a safe and legal route to apply for asylum then a lot of people think those numbers would reduce, I’m quite sympathetic to that argument.

 

We also have shit loads of people here already who could be working and paying taxes but they haven’t been processed. We are also spending shit loads of money now in France stopping people coming. Perhaps this thing would fund itself if we managed it appropriately.

 

I’d also like to say, whilst I agree the numbers are growing (although it’s an unfounded extrapolation to assume they’ll carry on growing at that rate), they’re still a tiny fraction of our population right now. There are real issues impacting millions of people such as needing to use foodbanks and not being able to afford to turn their heating on. Anyone who thinks that immigration is the burning political issue in this country is having the wool pulled over their eyes by a government who are failing on almost every level, and whose only chance of winning votes is this sort of xenophobic anti immigration sentiment that seems to resonate with some people as a lightening rod to blame all of their problems on, rather than an ultra wealthy establishment who are absolutely laughing while we struggle and fight amongst ourselves

Tommy Fresh

Tommy Fresh

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

This is why we need more safe and legal routes, to cut out all the background noise, as don’t we only have 3 currently? Afghan, Ukraine and Hong Kong?

Yeah as far as I'm aware just the 3

Ric Flair

Ric Flair

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, bennytwohats said:

The thing is, what’s been a big driver of those numbers is that there is now no safe and legal route for people to apply for asylum. They can only do it once they’re here, and they can’t get here via a legal route - hence they try to cross. If we opened up a safe and legal route to apply for asylum then a lot of people think those numbers would reduce, I’m quite sympathetic to that argument.

 

We also have shit loads of people here already who could be working and paying taxes but they haven’t been processed. We are also spending shit loads of money now in France stopping people coming. Perhaps this thing would fund itself if we managed it appropriately.

 

I’d also like to say, whilst I agree the numbers are growing (although it’s an unfounded extrapolation to assume they’ll carry on growing at that rate), they’re still a tiny fraction of our population right now. There are real issues impacting millions of people such as needing to use foodbanks and not being able to afford to turn their heating on. Anyone who thinks that immigration is the burning political issue in this country is having the wool pulled over their eyes by a government who are failing on almost every level, and whose only chance of winning votes is this sort of xenophobic anti immigration sentiment that seems to resonate with some people as a lightening rod to blame all of their problems on, rather than an ultra wealthy establishment who are absolutely laughing while we struggle and fight amongst ourselves

Couldn't have put it better myself

  • Like 3
Itsthejoeker

Itsthejoeker

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

Couldn't have put it better myself

Absolutely, you can’t complain about people not applying via the proper system when you make it impossible for people to apply as they have to do it here. 

wardyfox86

wardyfox86

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, bennytwohats said:

The thing is, what’s been a big driver of those numbers is that there is now no safe and legal route for people to apply for asylum. They can only do it once they’re here, and they can’t get here via a legal route - hence they try to cross. If we opened up a safe and legal route to apply for asylum then a lot of people think those numbers would reduce, I’m quite sympathetic to that argument.

 

We also have shit loads of people here already who could be working and paying taxes but they haven’t been processed. We are also spending shit loads of money now in France stopping people coming. Perhaps this thing would fund itself if we managed it appropriately.

 

I’d also like to say, whilst I agree the numbers are growing (although it’s an unfounded extrapolation to assume they’ll carry on growing at that rate), they’re still a tiny fraction of our population right now. There are real issues impacting millions of people such as needing to use foodbanks and not being able to afford to turn their heating on. Anyone who thinks that immigration is the burning political issue in this country is having the wool pulled over their eyes by a government who are failing on almost every level, and whose only chance of winning votes is this sort of xenophobic anti immigration sentiment that seems to resonate with some people as a lightening rod to blame all of their problems on, rather than an ultra wealthy establishment who are absolutely laughing while we struggle and fight amongst ourselves

Amen!

sacreblueits442

sacreblueits442

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Otis said:

So it's OK to defend free speech as long as you agree with it. 

Please note I'm not agree agreeing with his above mentioned comments. 

...with all free speech you have a right to do so, but do not be surprised that there are consequences in doing so!!!

 

Tiny earl

Tiny earl

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Itsthejoeker said:

He’s not dodged any tax, maybe you should direct you anger at our ridiculous complex tax laws around non-PAYE contractors which allow people to pay less tax than one would think is acceptable. 

Oh! your better informed than the HMRC fair enough!

RoboFox

RoboFox

Posted
Posted

Leicester City should be all over the boycott in solidarity with our Gaz.

 

A club right at the heart of a proud, multicultural, progressive city should be doing their utmost to support a local legend who had a huge part in saving it from desolation.

 

But of course they won’t be, because the club are fvcking soft. 

  • Like 3
RoboFox

RoboFox

Posted
Posted

Also I didn’t realise how many variations in spelling of the name “Lineker” there were until I read this thread. 
 

Remarkable. :appl:

foxes_rule1978

foxes_rule1978

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, RoboFox said:

Also I didn’t realise how many variations in spelling of the name “Lineker” there were until I read this thread. 
 

Remarkable. :appl:

It is funny because the correct spelling is in the title. 

steveherbe

steveherbe

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

for additional context, the claim they're crossing illegally is a lie. under the Geneva convention on refugees (Article 31) there are no illegal routes to entering a country for the purposes of claiming asylum. They can be routes that typically would be illegal entry into the country however you can't criminalise them in this scenario:

 

"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."

 

 

There's your answer, they are not coming from a country where they are DIRECTLY threatened. They are coming -  mainly - from France. So they should seek asylum in the first safe country they enter -IMHO of course.

  • Like 1
HoChiMinhFOX

HoChiMinhFOX

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, HankMarvin said:

99 percent of the population don’t have a problem with mass immigration though.
What about also supporting those nearer to home as well as a man stuck in the Asylum System from Turkey.

 

Or given that he is such an advocate for immigration maybe going down to Dover and getting some real insight and randomly housing someone direct from a boat as opposed to the “thorough screening and vetting process” that resulted in him taking in someone studying to be a Rocket Scientist.

 

Maybe he could also use his voice and speak out on the 1400 hundred homeless on any given night last year in his own County and potentially open up his home to some Local young men that have fallen on hard times and are homeless, if he has the space of course.

 

Yeah and solve world hunger while he's at it...So he's not entitled to an opinion because he's not welcoming them off the boats with rice crispy squares and lemonade? Behave.

  • Like 1
The Doctor

The Doctor

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, steveherbe said:

There's your answer, they are not coming from a country where they are DIRECTLY threatened. They are coming -  mainly - from France. So they should seek asylum in the first safe country they enter -IMHO of course.

the UK government would like that to be the law however the same convention disagrees, there's no implicit or explicit requirements to stop in the first safe country. While the UK might think it's free to break international law it's a signatory to (why do you think it got the nickname perfidious Albion?) it should expect criticism from decent people for doing so 

sacreblueits442

sacreblueits442

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, sishades said:

I disagree with GL but I will defend his right to freedom of speech. Its so easy these days to have speech cancelled just because some snow flakes get offended. I attended a school 2 mikes from the notorious Bergen Belsen concentration camp and was very much aware of what Nazis did. The railway lines were still in place in the streets of Bergen. Visiting this place on a school trip was very harrowing. To compare any UK government (Labour or conservative) to these monsters is outrageous.

 

Get a grip.

...have you ever read the utterances of Enoch Powell,  imagined if he had got himself into enough power to dictate the progress of the UK!!!

  Imagine what that would have looked like if he was in charge. Words can be pretty much, inflammatory and a necessary call to arms. Lineker was talking about the rhetoric prior to atrocities that ensued. 

Edited by sacreblueits442
Spelling error.
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...