pete75 wrote: ↑11 Mar 2023, 7:58pm
pwa wrote: ↑11 Mar 2023, 6:24pm
reohn2 wrote: ↑11 Mar 2023, 6:13pm
Obviously it would be different people who'd support a different opinion from whoever.
Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see your point.
I suppose the point is, are Lineker's supporters backing him simply because they think it is right that he is able to express any opinion freely, or are they only backing him because his opinion agrees with theirs. And would they back him if he was saying something they disagree with?
I'm guessing from that you disagree with Lineker's views. Would those who don't like what he said be criticising him if he'd said something they agreed with.
His twitter statement was extremely brief, so most of what I think his views are is a bit broad brush. But if he thinks as I imagine he does, no, I don't disagree with him on the substance of it. I do think that much as we need to get a grip on the small boats thing, we have to remember that we are dealing with poor and vulnerable people, many of whom might well qualify as "refugees". And although he doesn't say so, I imagine that, like me, he would like to see these people processed on French soil. I think his dragging up of Nazi Germany is unwise, but that is a minor point of presentation.
But what he has done is to turn his TV persona from an affable footy presenter, able to get on with anyone, into a political activist who despises those on one side of a contentious issue. A good chunk of his audience won't like him in his day job anymore, and that means he can't do it as well as he once did. He is now divisive. He has become too complicated for the TV Footy presenter role.
So I don't dislike him, I do think I probably agree with him in part at least, and I believe he would have been wiser to have kept his online persona anonymous, as you and I do.