What is going on at the BBC right now?

[LookItsMeAgain]

What with the news breaking today ( 10/03/23) that Lineker is to step back from presenting Match of the Day and now Ian Wright is also not going to appear on the show in solidarity. They also have said that they will not air a David Attenborough (what the hell did he do/say that pushed their buttons) episode due to fears of a right-wing backlash. On top of that, Fiona Bruce has said that Stanley Johnson 'only' broke his wife's nose once (I mean just how many times is too many, I ask ye).

What the hell is going on at the BBC right now????

Sources:
David Attenborough being cancelled
Gary Lineker stepping back from MotD
Ian Wright standing by Gary
Fiona Bruce story

Just wondering if anyone can make sense of what is going on in the BBC at the moment.

@MarshaBradyo I admire your persistence! I'm really interested in a good faith answer to this question.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/10/ex-tory-minister-tried-sell-off-forests-natural-england-role-caroline-spelman More Tory shameless, disgusting, cronyism. The PP should ask for her money back for this one too. Hint, she’s not a Lefty.

Well we’re handing over a fair chunk to France so that’s money. We don’t always have the smuggler land with the boat - in fact I doubt they ever do. So it’s hard to do much at our border.

You’re still not seeing what I mean. I’m not talking about the person who turns up and gets a no and it all feels orderly, I mean those who are outside the cap limit. The U.K. takes 10k and still people are desperate and don’t get a chance to use the capped safe route what do they do?

Ha thanks!

I’m interested too.

I think it needs to be highlighted that the only people using the word Nazi are those who are against Lineker’s statement. THEY are the ones appropriating the term for their argument.

GL’s statements were about language. Demonising and othering people based on their nationality, on the fact that they ‘are not British’.

As an Australian this is all depressingly familiar. It’s a tactic straight out of our own RW playbook from circa 2001. Our country’s political arena has been held hostage to the fucking boats ever since. The left were firmly wedged on the issue and ended up in a hideous race to the bottom to prove who could be tougher on asylum seekers. Nobody was made safer or better off (well a few political strategists made a fortune). Women still can’t walk down the streets safely at night wherever they like because that’s a bloody man problem not an immigrant problem.

This is a re-election campaign, pure and simple. Shore up your power on the backs of the poorest, most marginalised souls on the planet. Rely on the fact that enough people won’t give a shit because they’re brown and Muslim. If anyone with a profile dares to speak up, shut them down by describing them as privileged and overpaid. They don’t understand the plight of the common person like the Tories do!! Use anecdotes on social media because they have more cut through than actual statistics ever will.

And the people who fall for this shit have the hide to describe those who disagree with them as stupid. Strap in folks, it’s going to be a bumpy ride. I can guarantee you that your country won’t be made one bit better or safer and you’ll be a whole lot morally poorer in the process.

Funny how neither of you are engaging in everything I’m posting and only cherry picking.

The reality is, you may have a cap and it’s too high or too low. You will still have boat crossings and people smuggling. Human beings have migrated across the world since the year dot.

If you think you can stop it completely then you’re deluded.

The best you can do is try and process as many claims as you can through legal channels and then detain those who are illegal. That’s it.

I think you think you’re clever and want some sort of “aha but!” When the reality is, you’ve got no answers yourself.

😂
That backfired spectacularly for the beeb!

You’re still not seeing what I mean. I’m not talking about the person who turns up and gets a no and it all feels orderly, I mean those who are outside the cap limit. The U.K. takes 10k and still people are desperate and don’t get a chance to use the capped safe route what do they do?

We say no?

How hard is that to comprehend? But their chances of getting smuggled are lower, because, by providing legal routes, you reduce the scope for criminal gangs.

Im guessing you understand simple supply and demand. We’ve reduced our legal routes and ripped up returns agreements with our neighbours and hey presto, boat crossings have exploded!

No I just think we’ll have 10k via the safe route and the still have the smuggling route.

It’s not trying to catch you out or cherry picking.

I can’t see a way to do this without using harsh measures. And it seems we’re establishing more safe routes, throwing more money to French and will need harsh measures.

As for no answers - that’s my answer btw. That it can’t just be safe routes. But both.

We say no

Ok in practise what does that mean?

Then we just have to agree to disagree.

I didn’t say we’d stop the boats completely, I said they would reduce.

And I didn’t say just safe routes. It’s frustrating if people don’t properly read what I’m saying.

Oh you've said no - but I've been in Calais in a tent for yonks - ok I'll trot back to Africa/Iran or wherever

The best you can do is try and process as many claims as you can through legal channels and then detain those who are illegal.

No human being is illegal. They may have entered the country illegally, but they are not illegal people.

This is precisely Linekar’s point (I think). The rhetoric on this topic is absolutely awful. Dehumanising and shocking if you stop and think about it for even a minute. No human being is illegal.

First of all I think you’re labouring under the assumption that everyone we say no to will try and smuggle here illegally. Why do you think that?

I don’t think they will. Some may, and that’s why there should be a better policy to deal with smugglers. Currently, there isn’t.

I’m not an asylum expert - and, correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t think you are either.

That is where cooperation with our neighbours comes in, so we can have bilateral agreements for dealing with people who need asylum but we can’t help them.

Ok reduced boats. Not in safe routes 10k. But when that boat turns up what do we do?

This is all that needs to be said really.

I don’t know. I’m not an expert. What’s your answer?

Why not just answer the question that MarshaBradyo asked? It's a perfectly reasonable question...

"You’re still not seeing what I mean. I’m not talking about the person who turns up and gets a no and it all feels orderly, I mean those who are outside the cap limit. The U.K. takes 10k and still people are desperate and don’t get a chance to use the capped safe route what do they do?"

The majority of Albanian males won't be granted asylum in this country because Albania is considered to be a safe country. So what will stop them from crossing in boats once they are told "no"?

Personally I support legal routes for asylum seekers and they need to address that for sure but I don't think it will solve the boat issue, so that will still need to be dealt with. And to deal with it there needs to be a political solution and debate doesn't there?

We have thousands of outstanding asylum claims and these need to be dealt with quickly. Around 75% of asylum claims are successful, this means that there are 75% of outstanding claimants who could be useful members of society, sitting there being supported by NASS when they could be in work and contributing to themselves and others, this in a time of high employment need

Secondly we dont have a natural high number of claimants in the UK simply by virtue of cultural difference and distance to the home country. The reason other countries receive more refugees is because most refugees go to the neighbouring countries. People are less likelly to come to the UK so we have naturally lower numbers, therefore any reasonable cap is likely to be matched by the numbers wanting to come here

Yes there will be criminal traffickers, there are traffickers in the UK who have nothing to do with immigration at all, so it will never end but the legal and safe opportunities to claim in the UK, the processing quickly of claimants and documenting who is sent back if they are not successful lowers the risk of the trafficking. NOthing will be perfect but these are likely to lower the risk of harm to others.

I doubt there were many people fleeing France into Nazi Germany across the Rhine in the 1930s.

Whatever they’re putting in place now to stop boats that people are upset about. Or maybe even more measures I don’t know detail.

Even with safe routes we’ll need a system to deal with the next boat outside that arriving, that’s the simple point I’m trying to get across. And given all the laws around it it’s not easy atm although some countries have done it.

You didn't say it. GL said it. That's what we are taking issue with. No? I have said repeatedly that I am pro- immigration. I am the daughter of a post World War 2 immigrant. DM faced lots of racism when she arrived, and she was white and Catholic. She was still being called a bloody foreigner in the late 60's.

I just take issue with GL comparing the UK to Nazi Germany, which is untrue and ignorant.

If this government succeeds in taking down the BBC from the inside it will, by a narrow margin, be the worst thing they have done.

(On top of destroying the NHS and killing the public's trust in police, politicians and institutions through partygate, lying to the Queen etc, destroying the Northern Irish Peace process, and of course Brexshit).

The BBC is so unbelievably precious to our stability as a nation but most won't see that until it's gone.

Get politics out of the running of the Beeb.

Thing is, I wasn't talking about immigration, I was observing a historical fact, The definitions of othering that I find helpful is this: Othering is a phenomenon in which some individuals or groups are defined and labeled as not fitting in within the norms of a social group. It is an effect that influences how people perceive and treat those who are viewed as being part of the in-group versus those who are seen as being part of the out-group. With the language that Braveman and many others in this govt use in relation to asylum seekers in a deliberate attempt to distract from the mess we are in, I feel that this country is in a dangerous place, I guess you are familiar with this poem:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

This govt is currently focussing on immigration and asylum seekers, who will they use next as a distraction?

What’s your answer?

I’m also not an expert, but I think targets rather than limits are the answer. We have legal routes with rules for individuals and overall targets. If the numbers granted asylum mean we admit more than the target we can tighten the rules. If the numbers granted asylum mean we admit less than the target we can relax the rules.

Having safe, legal routes will reduce (though not eliminate) the number entering the country through unsafe, illegal routes.

Having rules+targets rather than absolute caps would allow for some humanity and discretion in the process. Having the rules and targets publicly available might improve the public discourse somewhat.