Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

What is going on at the BBC right now?

979 replies

LookItsMeAgain · 10/03/2023 17:42

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
poorlychild · 10/03/2023 21:51

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

@KnittedCardi you sound like you enjoy finding ways to be offended. He did NOT compare the UK to Nazi Germany.

He compared the language used by the government of the UK to that used in Germany in the 1930's. Which is a statement of fact.

JemimaTiggywinkles · 10/03/2023 21:51

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.

You’re assuming that absolute caps on numbers is the only solution. It isn’t. There’s the option of rules + targets.

NiceHotCuppaCoffee · 10/03/2023 21:56

JemimaTiggywinkles · 10/03/2023 21:38

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.

I see where you are coming from as those in Government should be skilled in language & communication.

Not everyone has great language skills or understanding.

You are expecting them to be the equivalent of a competent marathon runner because you are and punishing them because they aren't and never will be, and to shut up, as if they have no right to anything.

Untitledsquatboulder · 10/03/2023 21:57

Notaflippinclue · 10/03/2023 21:36

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

Maybe not, but you might settle for France.

Believeitornot · 10/03/2023 22:02

Signalbox · 10/03/2023 21:42

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?

Show quote history

why are you making it about Albanians?

Ive already said tackle the smugglers. Arrest them, reduce the numbers and you’ll get fewer crossings.

Anyone who manages to get here, if they cannot be granted asylum, then they are given safe passage to an agreed country - which may include their original home.

The “boat” issue will never be fully resolved. As I’ve already said, you’ll always have people smugglers - it’ll never be zero. Best you can get is to reduce it.

That is the answer I’ve already given and I can only apologise that I haven’t described it in more simpleton language for you.

MarshaBradyo · 10/03/2023 22:05

JemimaTiggywinkles · 10/03/2023 21:51

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.

You’re assuming that absolute caps on numbers is the only solution. It isn’t. There’s the option of rules + targets.

Can you say more about it?

I think I see what you mean. So in a year where 100k apply and we only accept 10k, we bring people all 100k on boats over and say no to 90k and take them back

Feel free to correct if not.

And the 90k settle somewhere else? Or try with a smuggler

TooBigForMyBoots · 10/03/2023 22:06

The Tories broke the asylum and immigration system. Just like they broke everything else in the UK.

MarnieSQ · 10/03/2023 22:10

Quveas · 10/03/2023 20:03

We all know exactly what '1930s Germany' was a precursor to. That is the point. To post such offensive inflammatory crap is not ok.

Judging by the last ten pages, that's simply not really true. The only offensive inflammatory crap is coming out of the mouths of ministers, who are happy to inflame racists over a clickbait slogan that they have admitted they themselves doubt will ever happen.

I have seen first hand, Bravernan’s ‘jumping on the bandwagon’ and her interpreting events incorrectly to support her own views.

Appalling women.

Believeitornot · 10/03/2023 22:10

MarshaBradyo · 10/03/2023 22:05

Can you say more about it?

I think I see what you mean. So in a year where 100k apply and we only accept 10k, we bring people all 100k on boats over and say no to 90k and take them back

Feel free to correct if not.

And the 90k settle somewhere else? Or try with a smuggler

Show quote history

What exactly are you wanting?

Why not point out what you think are the flaws and tackle them?

If it’s “oh what do we do when we hit our quota”, well I’ve already said.

If it’s to point out “oh but some will still come back illegally”, well that’s entirely possible…. because it’s utopia fantasy to imagine your borders wouldn’t be leaky and you’d extinguish people not presenting for asylum or coming via irregular channels.

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

MarshaBradyo · 10/03/2023 22:11

Believeitornot · 10/03/2023 22:10

What exactly are you wanting?

Why not point out what you think are the flaws and tackle them?

If it’s “oh what do we do when we hit our quota”, well I’ve already said.

If it’s to point out “oh but some will still come back illegally”, well that’s entirely possible…. because it’s utopia fantasy to imagine your borders wouldn’t be leaky and you’d extinguish people not presenting for asylum or coming via irregular channels.

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

Show quote history

My post was to another poster talking about targets and I want to know more.

JemimaTiggywinkles · 10/03/2023 22:12

NiceHotCuppaCoffee · 10/03/2023 21:56

I see where you are coming from as those in Government should be skilled in language & communication.

Not everyone has great language skills or understanding.

You are expecting them to be the equivalent of a competent marathon runner because you are and punishing them because they aren't and never will be, and to shut up, as if they have no right to anything.

Show quote history

No, I’m not punishing anyone - I don’t have the power to do that even if I wanted to (which I don’t). I’m saying that words matter. That dehumanising people is wrong. I don’t even know where the idea that people can be illegal came from, but it is wrong. And I make no apologies for pointing that out.

I don’t expect anyone to be perfect in their choice of language, and I know for sure that I’m not. I’m not asking people to be any kind of marathon runner (not least because the best I could hope for is 500m). I’m saying that when you describe a person as illegal you are dehumanising them, and that puts us all at risk.

Believeitornot · 10/03/2023 22:12

MarshaBradyo · 10/03/2023 22:11

My post was to another poster talking about targets and I want to know more.

Show quote history

Fair enough!!

Signalbox · 10/03/2023 22:13

That is the answer I’ve already given and I can only apologise that I haven’t described it in more simpleton language for you.

No need to be a dick.

Moonmelodies · 10/03/2023 22:20

Was the language used by the leaders of Nazi Germany really English, like that of the British Government?

Believeitornot · 10/03/2023 22:21

Signalbox · 10/03/2023 22:13

That is the answer I’ve already given and I can only apologise that I haven’t described it in more simpleton language for you.

No need to be a dick.

🤷🏻‍♀️

JemimaTiggywinkles · 10/03/2023 22:24

MarshaBradyo · 10/03/2023 22:05

Can you say more about it?

I think I see what you mean. So in a year where 100k apply and we only accept 10k, we bring people all 100k on boats over and say no to 90k and take them back

Feel free to correct if not.

And the 90k settle somewhere else? Or try with a smuggler

Show quote history

No. I’m saying we set rules for legal routes. People can apply from whatever place they’re in for asylum here which is granted here based on why they’re fleeing and why they choose here. We set a target for how many are granted based on how many we can accommodate and taking into account international standards for wealthy countries. If, in the first two years (for example), we find that there are more people granted asylum than we targeted we can make the rules stricter so fewer are admitted and we meet our target. Or we find that there are fewer granted than our target so we can relax the rules a bit.

The illegal routes will still exist, but they will be less attractive to genuine claimants because there are legal routes. Which would reduce the number coming. And those coming would be less likely to be genuine and we’d be more justified in setting draconian measures for dealing with small boats.

I’m sure it’s not a perfect idea (I’m a physics teacher, not an immigration expert), but it’s got to be better than either absolute caps or accepting the continuous arrival of people on dangerous small boats.

Notonthestairs · 10/03/2023 22:25

Former refugees minister Tory peer Lord Harrington tells me:

  • for Govt to take "moral high ground" legal asylum routes must exist
  • Braverman's words "not language I'd have chosen".
  • "Quite realistic" to say we can absorb 40k refugees a year.

twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1633431721566765056?s=46&t=Uw4lJNwxFZFnX0Xs3doHYg

JemimaTiggywinkles · 10/03/2023 22:31

In my world, we’d separate the people who decide the rules (based on how many asylum seekers we can reasonably accommodate) from the people who make the individual decisions (ie who meets the criteria). Not a cap, but a target.

NiceHotCuppaCoffee · 10/03/2023 22:38

JemimaTiggywinkles · 10/03/2023 22:12

No, I’m not punishing anyone - I don’t have the power to do that even if I wanted to (which I don’t). I’m saying that words matter. That dehumanising people is wrong. I don’t even know where the idea that people can be illegal came from, but it is wrong. And I make no apologies for pointing that out.

I don’t expect anyone to be perfect in their choice of language, and I know for sure that I’m not. I’m not asking people to be any kind of marathon runner (not least because the best I could hope for is 500m). I’m saying that when you describe a person as illegal you are dehumanising them, and that puts us all at risk.

Show quote history

Thanks for the clarity.

I described them as undocumented fit young men, I think that's factual.

JemimaTiggywinkles · 10/03/2023 22:43

I described them as undocumented fit young men, I think that's factual.

Is it? I hear this a lot but don’t know where the actual evidence is. You may well be right of course. For logical reasons many fit young men are at greater risk than women, children and old/unfit men in a war zone (they are faced with a sign-up-or-we’ll-shoot-you policy where women, children and old/unfit men are not).

Moonicorn · 10/03/2023 22:53

JemimaTiggywinkles · 10/03/2023 22:43

I described them as undocumented fit young men, I think that's factual.

Is it? I hear this a lot but don’t know where the actual evidence is. You may well be right of course. For logical reasons many fit young men are at greater risk than women, children and old/unfit men in a war zone (they are faced with a sign-up-or-we’ll-shoot-you policy where women, children and old/unfit men are not).

Oh stop it.

In any other scenario on MN, women and children are the most vulnerable, and posters see the need to protect them before young able bodied men.

The only reason that isn’t happening here is because there’s a racial element to it, and because not unquestioningly supporting the rights of these men over anyone or anything else makes you ‘right wing’.

TooBigForMyBoots · 10/03/2023 22:58

Is mine the only part of the UK that has women and children refugees?Confused

JemimaTiggywinkles · 10/03/2023 23:02

Moonicorn · 10/03/2023 22:53

Oh stop it.

In any other scenario on MN, women and children are the most vulnerable, and posters see the need to protect them before young able bodied men.

The only reason that isn’t happening here is because there’s a racial element to it, and because not unquestioningly supporting the rights of these men over anyone or anything else makes you ‘right wing’.

Show quote history

Have you ever seen the demographics profiles in the aftermath of WWI? There was a very obvious “missing” chunk of men. They were killed in the war.

In the vast majority of cases, women and children are at more risk than fit young men. But when it comes to enlistment, fit young men are way more at risk. To ignore that fact makes you look a bit daft.

As I said, I’m not an immigration expert. I’m a science teacher. So if I see something in the data I look for explanations. It might be that there are high numbers of fit young men because they’re all economic migrants. But to ignore the other potential explanations wouldn’t make me superior, it would make me, literally, ignorant.

Moonicorn · 10/03/2023 23:14

JemimaTiggywinkles · 10/03/2023 23:02

Have you ever seen the demographics profiles in the aftermath of WWI? There was a very obvious “missing” chunk of men. They were killed in the war.

In the vast majority of cases, women and children are at more risk than fit young men. But when it comes to enlistment, fit young men are way more at risk. To ignore that fact makes you look a bit daft.

As I said, I’m not an immigration expert. I’m a science teacher. So if I see something in the data I look for explanations. It might be that there are high numbers of fit young men because they’re all economic migrants. But to ignore the other potential explanations wouldn’t make me superior, it would make me, literally, ignorant.

Show quote history

And what would’ve happened had those young men not enlisted/been conscripted? Where would we be now? …yep, Nazi Germany.

Moonicorn · 10/03/2023 23:17

If we let healthy young men in, if the expectation is not that they should be liberating their own country while their wives/children/elderly are safe in countries like ours, where does that lead? It leads to a world where dictators preside unchallenged over vast swathes of land while the rest of us cram in to the remaining ‘safe’ places, all reaching boiling point because there simply aren’t the resources to support such high population densities. It isn’t sustainable in any form.