Quote from: fsn on 15 March 2023, 05:31:12 PMSo he meant ... ?

It's a bit like my previous quote being "from the book by those folk who like the bloke who was nailed to a cross".

Sorry, I'm teasing.

Quite so.  Of course he mean't the Nazis, he didn't have to say so.  They came to power in Germany in 1933 and nobody else had much of a voice if any.  Who else did he he mean?  I'm pretty sure it wasn't Weimar Republic.

And to highlight my point about the misinformation, Stoke MP Jonathan Gullis was interviewed by Channel 4 yesterday and said that he doesn't care about upsetting people, "...who want to call people up here racist bigots, Nazis, like Gary Lineker has done..." 

For anyone who wants a good overview of this, I highly recommend you listen to the Media Show that was on Radio 4 this afternoon. Very informative IMHO.

Non-Nazi users of racist rhetoric in pre war Germany?

How about the Volkisch Movement? Predates the NSDAP by some decades but their 'Blood and Soil' Germanic movement laid many of the foundations of the growing hatred of 'foreign' influences on Germany. Carried on throughout the thirties and beyond.

The Thule Society? - similar but Hitler fell out with them and they officially ended in 1925 but their bile lived on through the thirties.

Hans Keller's Volk Nationalism and Third Europe?

Antisemitism was rife throughout many parts of German society which fell prey to myth making and economic fear. They weren't all Nazis by any means, but the language used allowed extreme measures to be accepted when the NSDAP turned rhetoric into action.

Quote from: Gwydion on 15 March 2023, 09:03:52 PMNon-Nazi users of racist rhetoric in pre war Germany?

How about the Volkisch Movement? Predates the NSDAP by some decades but their 'Blood and Soil' Germanic movement laid many of the foundations of the growing hatred of 'foreign' influences on Germany. Carried on throughout the thirties and beyond.

The Thule Society? - similar but Hitler fell out with them and they officially ended in 1925 but their bile lived on through the thirties.

Hans Keller's Volk Nationalism and Third Europe?

Antisemitism was rife throughout many parts of German society which fell prey to myth making and economic fear. They weren't all Nazis by any means, but the language used allowed extreme measures to be accepted when the NSDAP turned rhetoric into action.

Quits so.

This is from the DNVP the main German Conservative Party

"Only a strong German nationality that consciously preserves its nature and essence and keeps itself free of foreign influence can provide the foundation for a strong German state. For that reason we resist the undermining, un-German spirit in all forms, whether it stems from Jewish or other circles. We are emphatically opposed to the prevalence of Judaism in the government and public life, which has emerged ever more ominously since the revolution. The flow of foreigners across our borders is to be prohibited"

I see, so when Lineker talked about language used in Germany in the 1930s he was alluding to the Volkisch Movement, the Deutschnationale Volkspartei, The Thule Society, and Hans Keller.  I'm glad we got that sorted out. 

Quote from: Leon on 15 March 2023, 05:47:35 PMAnd to highlight my point about the misinformation, Stoke MP Jonathan Gullis was interviewed by Channel 4 yesterday and said that he doesn't care about upsetting people, "...who want to call people up here racist bigots, Nazis, like Gary Lineker has done..."

A nasty piece of work who has a track record of making inflamatory comments like this one.  Similarly, Lucy Powell the Shadow Culture Secretary called the disciplining of Lineker like something from Putin's Russia.  Both are reflective of the standard of so many of our MPs these days.

I am disappointed that there isn't a party in the UK that I can generally agree with. I nod lightly to some Labour policies, and tip my hat to some Conservative viewpoints. Neither manages to convince me that they offer a competent, confident government. The rest seem to be an odd mix of unelectables of one sort or another, with a general drift to the extremes and an increasing void in the centre. 

The general level of political discourse seems to be to label anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint as something nasty, and so can be comfortably dismissed without engaging in argument or debate. 

Mayhap I am getting old, but I do think that the standard of politician has declined markedly. Perhaps we don't respect them as much as we used to, perhaps we are just cursed with a generation of non-entities, but I see nothing of much hope on either front bench.

It would be nice to have a reset, but to what? Proportional representation? Centrally funded political parties? Moving Parliament to Stafford? I don't know what will work. I see a gradual decline that no party has the policies or the guts to arrest.

I'm glad I'm old, and going to die soon, but I fear for my daughter and the following generations.   

I made the original comment as a joke, four pages, wow

Quote from: fsn on 16 March 2023, 06:53:36 AM, and going to die soon, 

Even though you are often  mildly irritating, I really hope that isn't the case.
( not a joke- Live Long and Prosper FSN)

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 16 March 2023, 07:39:30 AMEven though you are often  mildly irritating, I really hope that isn't the case.
( not a joke- Live Long and Prosper FSN)

Thank you. My father was one of 7 brothers, 6 of whom did not make it to 70. My brother died before he was 40. I am 62 this year and will be genuinely surprised to reach my 70th. I am not depressed by the prospect.

Thank you for your good wishes, and I apologise for being mildly irritating.

QuoteWhichever side of the political fence you sit on, we all need to look at things from different perspectives to see whether it's really an issue or simply a distraction from the real problems we're facing.

Totally agree. As I tried to hint earlier, I saw this whole thing as a clearly manufactured "big news" story deliberately designed to swamp media coverage of the actual Bill/Policy or any adult debate over legal and/or illegal immigration. If you look enough you can always find some comment by some celebrity that you can explode into a controversy. 

PS thanks for your excellent service replacing the "headless children".   Think how that one could have been twisted by social media users in support of the concept that all wargame manufacturers are evil and should be banned.

Quote from: DecemDave on 16 March 2023, 09:22:34 AMPS thanks for your excellent service replacing the "headless children".   Think how that one could have been twisted by social media users in support of the concept that all wargame manufacturers are evil and should be banned.

We wargamers seem to be more tolerated these days than back in the 70s/early 80s

Surely the real issue with all of this, is that Lineker breached his contract with the BBC.

And regardless of whether you think what he said was right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate, it is his breach of contract that matters. And probably 99% of all UK employees, no matter how 'important' they might think they are (or otherwise) probably have similar wording (specifically about bringing their employer into disrepute) in their contractual T&Cs.

The issue is more about how the BBC then went about 'disciplining' Lineker for that breach.
If he'd been a Premier League footballer he'd have been docked X number of days pay - but still been expected to play - so as not to have impacted the clubs fans or their results - and that is probably where the BBC has failed to get its contract right with Lineker and all the other ex-sports star/player pundits. The Football clubs all learnt a long time ago that you cannot stop players making fools of themselves (fighting or exposing themselves in nightclubs or making daft statements etc) so they just fine them heavily (& admittedly will suspend them on occasions).

But Lineker believes he is powerful enough to breach his BBC contract (that he signed knowingly) with impunity.
Regardless of whether the BBC is bowing to pressure from the Government or the fans or Lineker and the other pundits, it's actually a failure of management nerve that has got the BBC into this mess.

But ... it is all a load of nonsense. Private Eye summed it up in their most recent addition ... "Shock Horror ... an article on page 4 of the BBC website that was actually not mentioning the BBC at all!!!"     
 

The issue isn't about Lineker at all.

It's about the right of the individual to have a voice against the abuse of power.

Surrendering the right and the duty to criticise proposed breaches of natural justice to interpretations of contract law is a slippery slope to authoritarianism.

And I'm not sure you are right about the automatic actions of football clubs - was Marcus Rashford fined for criticising the Government over school meals provision?

I am continually surprised at the negative attitude people have towards the BBC. I think they got this one badly wrong initially but I'd rather have them than any of Murdoch's outlets or their clones.