To wonder what part of this statement reminded Gary L of Nazi Germany?

[marmaladeo]

This is Suella Braverman's statement Gary Lineker was reacting to when he said "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s" ... twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1633094764865126400

If she was saying she wanted to stop immigration I could understand GL's reaction. But she's not. I don't understand why anyone would not want to "stop the boats" when 1. they're lethal and 2. they're being run by criminal gangs. If GL had made it clear he wanted to stop the boats but thought this policy was the wrong way to do it, then fine. But he didn't - he just made an extremely inflammatory statement. He might be getting lots of love from some quarters, but personally I think he's an egotist who is playing into the hands of the people smugglers.

I have to think, otherwise this thread is just pointless, that you want them to change their minds! Calling other people 'idiots' never did that. Does it matter whether they think of them as legal or illegal? Isn't it the actual policy of what happens to them that is more important? I think more people are more concerned as to whether they are genuine asylum seekers as opposed to legal or illegal ones. If they're not going to change their mind over the legality of their status, why not move past that to discuss genuinely important issues.

I copied and pasted the stat

Overall, males represented 87% of small boat arrivals in 2022.

Then a few posts saying that can’t be right. I said why approval rate for that group was different.

Albanians are not the only group arriving

When people read this do they really think propaganda, I don’t get it it’s as dry as information can be. What do people want?

1. Nationalities and demographics of arrivals

Figures (including percentages) in this section exclude those where the nationality and demographic data has not yet been added to the electronic record (labelled as ‘Not currently recorded’ in the data tables).

Overall, males represented 87% of small boat arrivals in 2022. This proportion is similar to the proportion of males each year from 2018 to 2021.

Since January 2018, 76% of arrivals have been adult males aged 18 and over. Around one sixth (16%) have been children aged 17 and under (see table Irr_02c).

Since January 2018, Iranians have comprised 22% of all small boat arrivals. They represented the majority of small boat arrivals in 2018 (80%) and 2019 (66%). However, a greater mix of nationalities have been detected making the crossing since 2020 (see table Irr_02b). Albanian and Afghan nationals became noticeably more common in 2022.

In 2022, almost half of small boat arrivals were from these 2 nationalities - Albanians (28%) and Afghans (20%), as shown in Figure 4. Albanians were more prominent from July to September 2022, whereas Afghans became more prominent from October to December 2022.

In July to September 2022, 45% of small boat arrivals were Albanian (9,037).

However, in October to December 2022, only 9% of small boat arrivals were Albanian (1,099). Afghans were the top nationality for small boat arrivals in these 3 months, 33% of arrivals (3,834).

But didn't Lord Sugar say that in 2019 before the new guidance in 2020. In 2019, Gary Liniker, too, was saying anything he want to without censure.

Yes its all quite odd that we must ignore actual gov facts whilst lapping up silly bore off sketches and repeatedly posted clips.

@Nightlystroll When you’ve tried to give evidence to support your point and tried to correct misconceptions but the other side just come back screaming “rapey rapists!!” what do you do? How do you calmly debate with people who say “I don’t care, I’m not reading that link I just know they’re all illegals.” Again, one side of the debate is being held to much higher standard than the other.

The title of this thread is about wondering what part of GLs tweet reminded people of 1930s Germany. The othering of people by calling them illegal is a good example of that.

It is extremely important that asylum seekers are deemed to have committed a crime. If they have not done so, the government would have very little basis to lock them up. That too is due to human rights.

The reason we have the European Convention is because British Government lawyers wrote it after the Holocaust.

It's precise purpose was to prevent a government claiming, as a matter of domestic law, that it had acted lawfully in applying their domestic law to a minority group.

The above, incidentally, was the defence of many Nazis when tried for crimes against humanity. Their defence was that their own law stated their actions were necessary, and so they complied.

These convention rights, based on English common law, were given to everyone who signed it. So you cannot just say some people get rights in the U.K. and not others.

On the issue of certain religions - the rather excellent thing about human rights as an objective treaty is that if you are religious and say that homosexuals are fit for stoning and encourage the same then you are being discriminatory and should you act on it, it's crime. That isn't a matter of balance. It's law.

But licence payers haven’t objected. Or at least I haven’t seen any evidence that this furore was the BBC’s response to licence payer concerns - could you provide some?

it’s well known and documented that many BBC presenters express political opinions and they are allowed to do so in line with free speech.

it seems very much as if the government and BBC are selectively silencing viewpoints they disagree with.

I lived in China for years. Their government used similar tactics

where are the government facts that demonstrate that people arriving in small boats are responsible for rapes please @Janiie ?

I missed them if you posted them, but I’m very happy to be open minded to any evidence.

I don’t know what’s wrong with those facts or the incredibly detailed and long page. The comments make me think thankfully people putting them together are good at representing information.

The objections don’t make sense. Perhaps the stat alone felt too stark but it doesn’t change much. It’s correct alone, and when its impact is softened by many stats and information.

Gary needs to get back in his box. I suppose when you pay folk millions for commentating they will get inflated egos and have no boundaries, but he's gone a step too far with his 1930s Germany analogy. 'Ooh but no he wasn't referring to atrocities!' No one could have seen his biley comment and not made that obvious connection.

So hope the bbc are currently appointing new presenters. Or, they ditch MOTD 🤞

Thank you for your kind words. I wish the same to you x 2.

You don't know me or the situations I have had to deal with in my life

I’m probably being dense (and I appreciate the information - thank you)

but (and I don’t mean to sound arsey) what is the point/context for this information? What are you trying to say please?

'where are the government facts that demonstrate that people arriving in small boats are responsible for rapes please @@Janiie?'

I haven't said they are?

He wasn't talking about atrocities.
What do you think he was referring to when he talked about the language?
The ArchBishop of York said similar:

“We urge ministers to rein in their inflammatory words that all too often echo the language used by racist groups,” they write. “Dehumanising people in order to target minority and protected groups of people can only draw frightening parallels from history.”

@Janiie Let us not forget that you were also keen to encourage as to ignore law breaking by the government, including the current Prime Minister.
Why should we trust a government that can't even be honest about whether the Prime Minister and Chancellor attended an illegal party?

Sure. If you can’t differentiate between language and actions/atrocities, or between the 1939s and 1940s then certainly that connection would seem ‘obvious’

nuance and critical evaluation of what he (and many others) have actually said is so important

In the interests of factual accuracy. Gary Lineker isn't a commentator.

Marsha as that wasn't the press release I was talking about - it's irrelevant to my point 🤷‍♀️

It focuses on stopping the boats, not stopping immigration.

This hasn't got anything to do with immigration. It's about asylum seeking.

This government's (and this country's ..?) loathing of non English speaking brown skinned desperate humans fleeing war and devastation means the only way those humans can join their families or come here is via desperately unsafe routes.

This is nothing to do with immigration. It's to do with a loathing of others, total lack of compassion, and an incredible ability to go to lengths only the most uncivilised barbaric countries go to.

Come to think of it, it reminds me of something that happened in the 30s 🤔.

You don't know me or the situations I have had to deal with in my life

That’s a fair statement and one that should be respected. It would be great to expand that thinking to others, though - you don’t know asylum seekers or the situations they’ve been through, so they’re no more deserving of your vitriol than you are of any posters vitriol here.

We all know this is what he was alluding to. I've no idea why folk keep pretending 1930s Germany and 1940s Germany are 2 unrelated things and to comment on the 30s is absolutely nothing to do with Nazis.
It just makes him and his supporters look a bit silly tbh. I mean if you're going to post divisive and inflammatory language own it.

I have to think, otherwise this thread is just pointless, that you want them to change their minds! Calling other people 'idiots' never did that. Does it matter whether they think of them as legal or illegal? Isn't it the actual policy of what happens to them that is more important? I think more people are more concerned as to whether they are genuine asylum seekers as opposed to legal or illegal ones. If they're not going to change their mind over the legality of their status, why not move past that to discuss genuinely important issues.

Well my opinion is that when someone is repeatedly told an asylum seeker isn't an illegal immigrant and they refuse to understand it or change their language to match the law - that an idiot is exactly what they are.

That isn't an opinion on the small boats and what is to be done to stop them.

But it's really does matter if someone thinks something is illegal if it isn't.

Works both ways - what if people start thinking murder isn't illegal because they decide it isn't because a fanatical group starts telling them it's for the greater good. Ring any bells?

I posted a single line re 87% and had sneery response (typical but hey ho it gets dull reading their posts) along lines ah bless that’s propaganda etc

So I’m genuinely wondering what is it people object to on a site such as the gov one I linked?

I can see a single stat can feel more provocative and has more impact. But the information there is useful not propaganda imo.

And I’m not sure why people see it as such

Seen in context perhaps helps, hence the longer c&p

@Janiie I presume you also think this is overstepping?

(From @AnElegantChaos ’s link upthread)