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.

I increasingly have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously. I can see that you think you are making a point, but it is like you are in some sort of different universe.

Who is 'we' and 'us' for a start?

Happy to explain. ‘We’ means countries which are ‘safe’ and have a high degree of incoming refugees looking to seek permanent asylum.

Anything else you need me to go over?

Yes. Who is 'them'?

I didn’t say ‘them’. I said ‘they’ when I was clearly talking about the men crossing the channel.

So 'us' gets to tell 'them' what they should do in their own countries? I think that was the gist of your otherings?

'Us' wants that 'they' should die fighting in their own countries, yes? To keep 'us' safe in our superior-yet-crammed small places away from their dictators or whatever?

Do you have any idea just how that sounds?

No but ‘we’ should certainly get to decide what we do in our own country and that shouldn’t extend to offering asylum to healthy young men from patriarchal countries who have abandoned their wives, children and elderly to save their own skins. We should however offer asylum to the women, children and elderly while those healthy young men liberate their country like Ukraine is doing 🤷🏼‍♀️

So in your universe, the one that has 'us' at its centre, it would be better that all those women, children, elderly etc come here without a healthy young man to earn a living and provide and care for them?? And even - just think - pay for their airfares rather than subsidise people smugglers?

Are you volunteering the rest of 'us' to pay for and support those dependents instead? Perhaps 'we' should give 'them' a gun and send them back to fight the war that 'we' want to have happen to protect our superior-yet-crammed small place?

No? Not even give them the gun? Just send them back - perhaps you know, via Rwanda?

Has any actual thought gone into this xenophobic master plan?

Why would they need a man with them? We would provide what they needed. And it’s hilarious that you think prioritising ourselves is selfish when that’s absolutely what everyone else is doing - why wouldn’t we be at the centre of our own universe? 🤔Why is it always the U.K. who should prioritise others over itself?
And why would it be xenophobic? If I was a xenophobe, or racist, I wouldn’t want any refugees here. I would be quite happy with an uncapped number of women and children coming here and yes, being supported by us. The children (if they decided to stay and apply for permanent residence) would be an asset to our ageing population, after being socialised and educated under Western values. And women are not a threat.

There is something wrong with people who want to sabotage others, it's always been normal to look after family then work outwards from there.

Our government is supposed to put it's citizens first, that's normal.

Foucaults removal of boundaries cult - should really consider all relocating to Scotland, they can live the reality of their male sexual rights supremacy Utopia there and leave the rest of us in peace. Happy to take Scottish refugees.

Men & women fighting for their own country and values - whoever thought of such a thing. The men and women of Ukrain must be mad.

I think we are setting up more safe routes though. It was announced the other day

Plus more draconian measures for those outside the routes

So I think we are doing this anyway. I’m not sure about increasing or decreasing part which might be tricky but when people say safe routes plus harsh on others. That’s the plan from what I can see

Safe routes will happen when the boats stop coming - so chicken and egg.

But given that the Bill won't be implemented this side of a GE the Conservatives aren't offering safe routes at all. They are kicking it down the road for Labour.

I thought more safe routes were mentioned recently?

Whatever is put in place, 10k each from say six countries, there’ll need to be a mechanism for the next boat to arrive outside that. Currently I don’t believe you can not process that arrival by law, but if people say we are harsh on those outside routes you need a legal framework to do that.

Just to say no and remove the people from our border I assume - not sure where to especially if undocumented.

"Mr Sunak and Ms Braverman have however insisted that new safe and legal routes will only be set up once Channel crossings have been reduced significantly."

I don't consider this a firm commitment to set up safe routes. The bill even if it was implemented may take years to have any impact - detention centres need to be built, returns mechanisms developed and the law will need to be tested. It will take years.

And then they haven't explained at what level the boats need to reduce before they'll consider setting up safe routes.

But I think the proposal is simply something to wave at voters before the May elections. Investing more in the Home Office & speeding up processing and getting return agreements in place isn't quite so headline grabbing.
Excellent distraction from CoL and strikes however.
inews.co.uk/news/migrant-boats-uk-safe-legal-route-open-refugees-2193751

There has been announcement on speeding up process. It didn’t go down that well as it removes a stage. But people will have likely forgotten that by now.

A huge amount is being handed to France as many criminals are not likely to arrive here but just put people on boats and wave them off.

Detention centres - could exist already but need approval

Imo it’s not convincing to those who want this to happen before it does. It gets the votes if it does reduce numbers. It’s fairly stark as an offer as the public can see how many boats arrive.

"Detention centres - could exist already but need approval"

The Times suggest that they aren't fit for habitation.

Steven Swinford pointing out just a few of the many issues with the proposals 🧵

twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1632679991732322304?s=46&t=Uw4lJNwxFZFnX0Xs3doHYg

I have no expectations at all that the Bill will come to pass. None.

But then I don't believe it was ever intended to. If you can't rely on your record in Government then you need all the distractions you can pull together.

We’ll see. It’s fairly pointless as a distraction.

Sunak seems determined as with Windsor agreement so will wait and see what happens.

Shutting down criticism wherever it come from is the actions of a Right Wing Authoritarian Government.

He was re stating what a death camp survivor said to Braverman herself.

The Government should have said "Dont agree but we don't control the BBC, therefore its a matter for them, not us"

I couldn't disagree more with Farage or Jeremy Clarkson but they have the right to speak out, though in JC's case, specifically on Markle, he called for her to harmed, which is slightly different.

Mark of a free society, which we should all want or they'll be shutting us all down.

To come back to Fiona Bruce , Refuge's statement in support of her has not gone down well at all. Not one little bit.

twitter.com/RefugeCharity/status/1634236325191663626

I'm astonished that,, on a woman's website, people aren't more appalled by this and keener to discuss it. Not one single thread, other than this one where most people have exhibited zero fucks.

Can’t you start the thread?

Why wait for someone else if it’s important to you

Detention centres - could exist already but need approval

Detention centres? you mean locking up people without trial, sentence or a release date.

France has strict laws on how long someone can be detained for, the UK does not.

Really don't know why the emphasis isn't on the trafficking gangs, most of whom HQ here in the UK - Why?

The OP did, marsha.

If you want a thread dedicated to it as you seem to, it’s easy to start one

Oh marsha , give over.

Lol seemed obvious tbh.