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've noticed the "Linekar" spelling quite a bit on twitter as well. Is it the Russian bot farms do you think?

How have you got this far through the week still beliving that asylum seekers can be illegal?

Peopel are so disingenuous. We all know exactly what he was implying by his 'Germany' comments. Inflammatory and goady.

Australia has a terrible reputation regarding immigration and human rights. Why anyone would think that this would ‘sell’ the argument is beyond me.

It's nothing like the Nazis of the 1930s. What Lineker and his sycophants have neglected to take into consideration that the Jews in Germany were GERMAN. They rounded up from their OWN homes, in their OWN country, and sent to the gas Chambers. They were NOT illegal immigrants coming from safe countries to be fed and housed by the UK taxpayers.

And, as many similar posters have deliberately misinterpreted - it's not the people that are being compared, it's the language used.

Do keep up...

Folk supporting him have misspelt it on other threads. Are they bots too?
Lineker/Linekar who cares, we all know who we are talking about.

Omg my blood turned to ice reading that.

Why the name change for this thread OP?

Lineker did not compare the plight of people coming over in boats to the plight of Jewish people in Nazi Germany. He talked about the danger of the language being used and the similarities to that used in 1930s Germany.

He was right to do so.

Asylum seekers aren't illegal immigrants. They're asylum seekers. Or f do you not care about the difference between the two?

At least you realise that's what you're spouting

Come on now, you can't have missed all the explanations that asylum seekers cannot be illegal. That you think they are rather demonstrates Lineker's point for him.

Illegal and uncontrolled immigration needs to stop.

I don't care about semantics, hyperbole, drama or the 'she said'/'he said' circus

Of course they can be. They need to claim at the first safe country and they are not doing so.

Evidently.

Another recent piece of legislation with massive similarities was an amendment to the online safety bill stating that content showing people crossing the Channel in “a positive light” will be illegal and that tech platforms must proactively prevent such content from reaching users.

Yes, it disgusted me also.

They took a lesson from those keen on 'thought police' going around arresting people who understand biology and I guess they assumed that those who agree with that type of though criminal will agree to this type of though control.

Define 'reputation' please. 'Reputation' according to who?

'And, as many similar posters have deliberately misinterpreted - it's not the people that are being compared, it's the language used.'

🥱

It wasn't the language, it was the situation. We all know it. Plenty of other actual relevant examples he could have used about governments attempting to control illegal immigration, no doubt similar language would be used.

Jesus H Christ on a bike. Here we go again. You need to watch the video where Gullis is made to look a right dick for not understanding this is not the case.

Agh. I'm not getting involved this time.

Gary Lineker is not the only person questioning the choice of language www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/17/confronted-suella-braverman-holocaust-survivor-refugees-home-secretary

Another good demonstration of how the government has done to you exactly what Lineker is saying.

The 1951 convention explicitly says that asylum seekers can claim asylum in any safe country.

The government really have done a number on you.

Define 'othered' in this context please

In the past 10 minutes there have been two separate posters demonstrating precisely the point that Lineker was making about the language that is being used.

Until you and everyone else including the government accepts that there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker and that asylum seekers can seek asylum in any safe country then Lineker will continue to be right.

Under the terms of the 1951 Refugee Convention there is no requirement to claim asylum in the first "safe country" reached.

Calling people illegal for a start.