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

Bordersfox

Bordersfox

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

The fact that this cretin Alastair Cambell can go on TV and carp on about the rights of refugee's when his dodgy dossier for an illegal war in Iraq created more of them than most (as well as killing a million) is a joke.

I don't disagree about Campbell.  I voted for Corbyn as leader of the Labour party and I despise those in Labour who systematically undermined him. 

 

But right now the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  This bunch of egregious fvckers need to be assaulted from every side before there is nothing left of this country worth fighting for.  

  • Like 3
Unabomber

Unabomber

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

 

Lmfao that source. 

 

Fvcking hell man. Why am I bothering lol

You have to be some guy to back these scum bags ffs.

  • Like 1
BigGibbo

BigGibbo

Posted
Posted

The country's in the bin. Cess pit pandering to our lowest common denominators to detract from their own failings. 

 

As for Lineker he's a Leicester legend and should be remembered on a par with Des Lynam & Jimmy Greeves as a broadcaster in the long run.

  • Like 3
  • Popular Post
Sampson

Sampson

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

Genuinely can't believe people are trying to defend the BBC and slate Lineker on this. Regardless of what you think of Lineker about anything else, he's absolutely spot on that using terms like "illegal invasion" of people coming here as refugees is extremely reminiscent of 1930s Germany and is a slippery slope. That shouldn't be controversial to say. He's not saying the Tory Party are the literal Nazi party, he was rightfully criticising the language around a policy which is patently illegal under international human rights laws.
 

He's now been forced out by a BBC chairman who is a Tory donor and even loaned money to Boris Johnson and the director-general is also an open Tory because he dared to criticise the government.

 

This is despite the likes of Alan Sugar staying on air in the Apprentice despite also being extremely open pro-Boris Johnson who attacked Mick Lynch and Jeremy Corbyn repeatedly very openly on twitter.

 

So it's quite transparently nothing to do with "breaching impartiality guidelines" when it's ok for BBC personalities who are pro-Tory and anti-Labour to do exactly the same thing.

 

It's because the BBC are no longer impartial themselves and have over the past 2-3 years hired at the top people who have very direct and open links to the standing government and the Tory Party.

 

It's the government censoring criticism of them. I'm genuinely flabbergasted people cannot see it when it's right in front of their face and are actually not only not outraged at this decision and what it means to live in a free, democratic country, but are actually saying it's a good thing that's he's gone(?!)

People confound me sometimes.

Edited by Sampson
  • Like 21
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
FoxInTheBirstallBox

FoxInTheBirstallBox

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Can't we just fast forward to the next GE when we don't have to put up with these idiots anymore. 

I'm actually scared that there's enough idiots who will vote for them and not enough younger people who will vote at all

Wymsey

Wymsey

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Can't we just fast forward to the next GE when we don't have to put up with these idiots anymore. 

Just don't vote.

Unabomber

Unabomber

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Sampson said:

Genuinely can't believe people are trying to defend the BBC and slate Lineker on this. Regardless of what you think of Lineker about anything else, he's absolutely spot on that using terms like "illegal invasion" of people coming here as refugees is extremely reminiscent of 1930s Germany and is a slippery slope. That shouldn't be controversial to say. He's not saying the Tory Party are the literal Nazi party, he was rightfully criticising the language around a policy which is patently illegal under international human rights laws.
 

He's now been forced out by a BBC chairman who is a Tory donor and the Chairman is an open Tory because he dared to criticise the government.

 

This is despite the likes of Alan Sugar staying on air in the Apprentice despite also being extremely open pro-Tory who attacked Mick Lynch and Jeremy Corbyn repeatedly very openly on twitter.

 

So it's quite transparently nothing to do with "breaching impartiality guidelines" when it's ok for BBC personalities who are pro-Tory and anti-Labour to do exactly the same thing.

 

It's because the BBC are no longer impartial themselves and have over the past 2-3 years hired at the top people who have very direct and open links to the standing government and the Tory Party.

 

It's the government censoring criticism of them. I'm genuinely flabbergasted people cannot see it when it's right in front of their face and are actually not only not outraged at this decision and what it means to live in a free, democratic country, but are actually saying it's a good thing that's he's gone(?!)

People confound me sometimes.

Spot on. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either at best ill informed or thick.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Wymsey

Wymsey

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

How would that help

Aren't the General Elections rigged to some extent?

Edited by Wymsey
Tommy Fresh

Tommy Fresh

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, FoxInTheBirstallBox said:

I'm actually scared that there's enough idiots who will vote for them and not enough younger people who will vote at all

At least this time the Tory medias only attack is that Starmer is apparently a bit boring, not like previous elections when everyone was petrified London would turn in to downtown Caracas under Corbyn, or we'd have a guy in charge who looked a bit odd eating (wait maybe you're right 😂)

  • Haha 1
Sly

Sly

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mike the Metal Ed said:

That should be the case, but the BBC has to exist in the same market economy as Sky, ITV and the rest of it.

 

If you get rid of their high value talent, then people would just question what they're paying for, they can't win in that regard.

 

Sadly, the BBC has been shutting down a lot of its previous entry level talent roles, not least the recent huge scaling back of local radio.

Your almost question why we bother paying for a license! 

  • Popular Post
Sampson

Sampson

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, shade said:

Most don't, and I think we know why.

That's objectively untrue though. 73% of asylum seekers claim asylum in a country that neighbors their own.

 

And we take in way, way less refugees than the other 2 similar sized western European countries - France and Germany. Germany has 3 times as many applicants as we did in 2021 and France over twice as many for reference.

 

Link below

UNHCR - Asylum in the UK

 

And refugees and asylum seekers are legally allowed to claim asylum in any country they like, it's explicitly listed in international law that they don't have to claim asylum in the first safe country they enter - and this is international law which UK were literally the ones writing up the law on and the head signature of and got other countries to sign up to in 1948 as a result of WW2. 

Edited by Sampson
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Bordersfox

Bordersfox

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, FoxInTheBirstallBox said:

it worries me that people can vote and dont

And of course their is a higher number of disenfranchised people amongst the poor (i.e. people who aren't registered to vote due to housing issues, mental health issues, poverty generally and so on) who would statistically be more likely to vote Labour. 

FoxInTheBirstallBox

FoxInTheBirstallBox

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Sampson said:

That's objectively untrue though. 73% of asylum seekers claim asylum in a country that neighbors their own.

 

And we take in way, way less refugees than the other 2 similar sized western European countries - France and Germany. Germany has 3 times as many applicants as we did in 2021 and France over twice as many for reference.

 

Link below

UNHCR - Asylum in the UK

 

And refugees and asylum seekers are legally allowed to claim asylum in any country they like, it's explicitly listed in international law that they don't have to claim asylum in the first safe country they enter - and this is international law which UK were literally the ones writing up the law on and the head signature of and got other countries to sign up to in 1948 as a result of WW2. 

Stopppp you'll upset the racists

Joe90lcfc

Joe90lcfc

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, davieG said:

Anything that shuts him up to me he's just become a know it all smug boring irritant. He's certainly not worth the £1.5m salary.

 

No longer watch MOD. anyway

Spot on this 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
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...