Gary Lineker - foot in mouth again

[onegrumpyoldwoman]

I wish this guy would stick to football or selling crisps

Most recently, he gave an interview to Medhi Hassan (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/12/lineker-appears-to-call-oct-7-attacks-the-hamas-thing/ ) where he appeared to minimise the October 7th Hamas attacks as “the Hamas thing”, whilst falsely stating of the war in Gaza “I can’t think of anything that I’ve seen worse in my lifetime”. This statement is absurd hyperbole given that Mr Lineker was born in 1960 and has hence lived through major wars such as Vietnam, Iraq, Iran-Iraq, the Soviet and Western interventions in Afghanistan, and the Syrian Civil War, all of which have cost hundreds of thousands, in some cases millions, of lives.

I do not believe that it is compatible with Mr Lineker’s role as a presenter on Match of the Day, and hence an employee of our national public broadcaster, which is supposed to be politically impartial, for him to take such outspoken stances.

I have no idea why he’s allowed on the BBC, he’s supposed to be impartial but he’s always talking shit. He’s got a sordid past himself so his holier than thou act is ridiculous.

@astonssandboxisalittertray Wanting the BBC to only employ people that toe a particular party line does not sound very democratic to me.

No, I expect people that get paid by my licence fee to stick to their contract.

The BBC introduced a new so-called ‘Lineker clause’ in September, which attempted to dissuade presenters who work on “flagship programs” from voicing their political opinions.

Gary L seems to think he's above the rules of the company he works for.

You can't state that someone's opinion is false, however much you disagree with it.

Yes, and Israel is complying with that order.
A quick google suggests the opposite tbh. Do you have evidence that outlines how they have?

Incidentally, the ICJ said that Hamas must immediately release all the hostages unconditionally.
No they haven't complied either but Israel is in a different position because they have signed up to the international humanitarian laws, Hamas has signed up to no international laws or treaties (doesn't make it right though)

I have no idea why he’s allowed on the BBC, he’s supposed to be impartial
He is not speaking on behalf of the BBC here thought. I am no fan of Lineker's but suggesting he as an individual needs to be impartial is not accurate.

I would need time to source the information you seek.

Israel’s report is confidential. So unless Israel or the ICJ decides to make it public, we're likely not going to see Israel's report.

What exactly happens next after the report is submitted depends on how the court reacts to it. Beyond that, it depends on whether South Africa decides to try and initiate further hearings for further provisional measures. All of this would still be at the provisional measures stage as opposed to the merits of the case stage, which is going to take years.

The court already had the opportunity to issue new provisional measures, following South Africa's communication requesting the court to reevaluate given the urgency of the impending assault on Rafah. But it chose not to.

Make of that what you will.

I didn't say "his opinion was false".

That's a quote from the newspaper article, not my words.

When I think of this anti-semitic misogynist I always remember the time he shat himself and wiped his arse on the pitch. Sum's him up in so many ways.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfvyi5

Your last sentence is very revealing.

Wow !

😮

It seems his tax affairs are a bit $h!££y as well...

https://www.accountancyage.com/2023/06/22/hmrc-to-appeal-gary-lineker-ir35-case/

He’s not the brightest

It's starting to look more like a smear campaign by yourself of the man, because you don't agree with his political views on the current conflict 🤔
What has this or what you replied to, have anything to do with your original OP?

Excuse me - I didn't post the picture of him wiping his $h!££y @r$e on a football pitch.

If you want to throw brickbats, aim at the right person.

This.

Most people seem to laugh at him or deride him.

He’s actually right. In terms of the extent of destruction in the timeframe it is worse than all of those conflicts and in terms of the concentration of civilian casualties it’s also worse. Iran-Iraq war was largely fought on the border of the countries and mainly involved soldiers, it was a war of attrition fought in trenches much like WWI. You might be right about Vietnam, 2.2 million dead civilians averages out to about 300 per day. Right now, at the rate he’s going, Netanyahu is killing on average about 160 Palestinians every day.

but these are all very different conflicts — war in Afghanistan went on for 20 years and killed 29,000 civilians (but a lot of that was Americans hopelessly trying fight a militia in the mountains). Again, Netanyahu has already topped that (I’m sure he’s so proud). But I think you’re missing Lineker’s point which is he hasn’t seen anything like this in his lifetime and he’s correct. What could he possibly remember as a child in the 1960s? But more importantly, the way we’ve been exposed to this war is unlike anything else — it’s been pretty much live-streamed to our personal devices. So when Israel sends a 2,000 pound US made bomb on a neighbourhood in Khan Younis, because it thinks 1/2 Hamas members live there, we will see the crushed and torn bodies of little babies or (for instance) the four year old girl who’s torso was ripped almost in half and left hanging from a broken concrete wall, within hours if not minutes of it happening. The images have been absolutely, without exception, the most horrifying because of their shear number and volume. And it’s interesting because Oct 7 was a horrifying, shocking 6 hours of hell but Israel has been seeking vengeance for it so far with 220 days of utter destruction, death and deliberate starvation. Israel’s response has been wildly disproportionate. There’s no justification for it. You can’t say that 34,000 Palestinians deserve to be killed or needed to be killed for the 1,200 people (chunk of them IDF btw) killed by Hamas and PIJ and the 230 hostages. That’s just a distinctly amoral form of racism, surely? I honestly haven’t lived through anything like this. Because as well as the bombs, it’s the fact that Israeli right wing nut jobs are destroying shipments of aid at border crossings and the aid deliveries are being deliberately stalled. Oh and the water! Not sure if many people know this but Gazans are not allowed to collect their own rain water and also chocolate imports have always been banned by Israel. And in general the aerial bombardment is also officially worse than Dresden. So yeah it is absolutely f8cking awful and he’s absolutely right.

@Liliputian So yeah it is absolutely f8cking awful and he’s absolutely right.

but does his contract allow him to say so, that the issue ?

“…falsely stating of the war in Gaza “I can’t think of anything that I’ve seen worse in my lifetime”. This statement is absurd hyperbole given that Mr Lineker was born in 1960 and has hence lived through major wars such as Vietnam, Iraq, Iran-Iraq, the Soviet and Western interventions in Afghanistan, and the Syrian Civil War, all of which have cost hundreds of thousands, in some cases millions, of lives.”

I think it is a bit unfair to say he has made a false statement. Yes he co-existed on the same planet as other far away wars went on that could be called worse depending upon what criteria you use. However, mere co-existence doesn’t equate to awareness or even having seen those wars. As has been mentioned on the thread already, OP failed to mention alot of wars in Africa and Central/South America that were also particularly nasty- her unawareness of these doesn’t make her list of wars she considers to be worse “false” or “hyperbole”.

When someone says ‘worst I have seen’ they aren’t saying the absolute worst anywhere their entire life so it is a bit unfair to apply that standard imho.

Exactly this, well said.

But it seems some people think Lineker's behaviour is way worse than genocide, aid prevention, carpet bombing, making many thousands of orphans, millions homeless etc etc.

@murgugug But it seems some people think Lineker's behaviour is way worse than genocide, aid prevention, carpet bombing, making many thousands of orphans, millions homeless etc etc.

Do you really believe that? Really?

Then don’t buy a TV licence and boycott BBC. No one is forcing you to pay for his talking head on TV. I don’t pay for a licence or watch BBC

Gary L seems to think he's above the rules of the company he works for.

This is the same BBC who refused to refer to Hamas as terrorists, so I don’t think the BBC is going to criticise these comments of his.

I think he says in the interview that he’s too old and at a point in his life where he can afford not to care. Tbh if I had his wealth and financial security, I’d also use my platform to speak up against and atrocity or genocide (at least I’d like to think I would). And after the last bbc debacle with the tweet I think he may have reached an agreement over what he’s able to do outside or MOTD and he is a freelancer. But if he gets fired over an interview where he says Gaza is the worse thing he’s seen in his lifetime, I don’t think that’s so bad (it’s not like being fired do alcoholism, bullying, harassment, rifling through a dead woman’s underwear draw or, dare I say it, killing lots of children)

Oh boy, I wish I could still watch TV without having to pay the BBC for a licence, but I can't without having some enforcement officer knocking at my door.

So as I licence payer I think I have the right to say how my money is spent.

an employee of our national public broadcaster, which is supposed to be politically impartial,

I don't think you understand the defenition of "politically impartial". No part of what he has said is critical or supportive of a UK political party.

He has expressed an opinion about an event in a foreign country - something he is perfectly entitled to do, just as you are entitled to disagree with him.

The ruling in January was there is “plausible risk of genocide”