Migrant watch (merged topic)

[RevdTess]

But it is no good the BBC being impartial until something is really on the line, and then changing the rules to suit the government of the day or narrow political party interests. There has to be a clear policy and the BBC must stick to it consistently, and that does not appear to be the case right now.

I agree with you on this. The rules on impartiality do not appear impartial, and that's why so many presenters are coming out in support of Lineker right now.

I happen to agree with his sentiment that govt rhetoric on immigration (actually the unwanted sort of immigration but they don't clearly differentiate) is appalling, cruel and immoral. If the situation were reversed and the govt were using gentler language while Lineker was attacking wokeness and calling for harsher measures, would I have wanted him suspended? No, because the result would have been exactly what we see - an outpouring of sentiment supporting the right to say whatever you like no matter the consequences.

The Church of which I am a minister has the same problem. I have a job where I literally preach every Sunday on moral issues that we believe may have eternal consequences. But if I preach in such a way that I appear to be taking sides in a current political debate then I (like Archbishop Justin Welby) would get told to stay out of politics. But given some of the scriptures we take as our guide, it's pretty hard to avoid political topics unless you're super-vague.

e.g.
Exodus 22:21: "“You must not mistreat or oppress foreigners in any way."
Leviticus 19:33-34 "“Do not take advantage of foreigners who live among you in your land. Treat them like natives, and love them as you love yourself."

Not to mention the early Church sharing all their possessions and Jesus telling rich people that unless we give away all our possessions we cannot be his disciples. It's like super-woke hippy socialism, man.

Of course we Christians all find ways to justify ignoring this stuff. It's all about context, my friends, context!

[UndercoverElephant]

Seems the 'small boats' are a Brexit phenomena:

Correlation is not causation.

[UndercoverElephant]

I happen to agree with his sentiment that govt rhetoric on immigration (actually the unwanted sort of immigration but they don't clearly differentiate) is appalling, cruel and immoral.

I don't understand this at all. All I can see is statements of fact. What exactly do you think is apalling, cruel or immoral?

e.g.
Exodus 22:21: "“You must not mistreat or oppress foreigners in any way."
Leviticus 19:33-34 "“Do not take advantage of foreigners who live among you in your land. Treat them like natives, and love them as you love yourself."

Leviticus is not, for me, a credible source of information of any sort.

Not to mention the early Church sharing all their possessions and Jesus telling rich people that unless we give away all our possessions we cannot be his disciples. It's like super-woke hippy socialism, man.

Of course we Christians all find ways to justify ignoring this stuff. It's all about context, my friends, context!

The current context has very little to do with anything that happened in 1st century Judea.

[UndercoverElephant]

This is all spiralling out of control rather rapidly. The BBC are going to lose half their sports department at this rate. I wonder whether it is really about the government's migrant policy, or whether it is about free speech, or whether it is about inconsistency at the BBC. Very hard to tell. Probably all of the above. It's not clear how it will end though.

[RevdTess]

"How the political right has used ‘impartiality’ to first gain political power, and then take over the BBC"

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2023/0 ... -used.html

[Potemkin Villager]

The current context has very little to do with anything that happened in 1st century Judea.

And of course absolutely nothing to do with Brexit.

[RevdTess]

I happen to agree with his sentiment that govt rhetoric on immigration (actually the unwanted sort of immigration but they don't clearly differentiate) is appalling, cruel and immoral.

I don't understand this at all. All I can see is statements of fact. What exactly do you think is apalling, cruel or immoral?

I think if I answer this, you will simply disagree that what I see as appalling, cruel or immoral are anything of the sort. This is what makes discussion so difficult these days. We simply don't agree on moral categories any more across society. We're far more likely to be censured for saying something is immoral than actually saying or doing something immoral.

Leviticus is not, for me, a credible source of information of any sort.

I'm not using it as a source of information, but as a source of moral teaching. We all ignore great portions of Leviticus, and rightly so, because as we both agree, 21st century Britain is not Judea 2500ish years ago. However, there are politicians who claim to be inspired by Christian teaching and Christian morality, and how we treat foreigners ("Love them as you love yourself") is right at the core of Jesus's teaching, and the teaching of the Old Testament. Anyone who wants to claim any Christian motivation for their politics needs to explain why they feel able to ignore this sort of compassionate and empathetic moral teaching. Those who aren't Christian can ignore it all they like of course, but my argument for why our response to refugees and asylum seekers should always be generous and kind and our language should always be welcoming and inclusive, is always going to be based in these scriptures, and in my own experience of God's unconditional love. There remain loads of questions about what response is pragmatic and practical, but I'd love at least to hear politicians speaking with kind, unselfish, and welcoming language that makes me proud to be British.

The current context has very little to do with anything that happened in 1st century Judea.

In some ways, no, but as someone who preaches every week on what happened in 1st century Judea, I can assure you I find parallels with modern society in pretty much every verse. In fact, I'm doing it right now for my sermon tomorrow on the Samaritan woman that Jesus meets at Jacob's well. She's an uneducated foreigner and a woman with questionable moral behaviour and Jesus as a holy Jewish man shouldn't by rights have anything to do with her, but he respects her and answers her questions and spends far more time with her than with the important men who think they have all the answers. Eventually the woman is so overjoyed to be included and affirmed by Jesus that she becomes a huge supporter and there is reconciliation, at least in that village, between two cultures.

On Monday, my church is being visited by a local school who have been studying Jesus' morality and asking the question "Is Jesus' teaching relevant in Britain in the 21st century" - or to put it another way - "What would Jesus do?" I will be intrigued to hear their answers when it comes to the subject of immigration!

[UndercoverElephant]

I think if I answer this, you will simply disagree that what I see as appalling, cruel or immoral are anything of the sort. This is what makes discussion so difficult these days. We simply don't agree on moral categories any more across society. We're far more likely to be censured for saying something is immoral than actually saying or doing something immoral.

Well, we aren't going to get very far if your morality is coming from a book written 2300 years ago with claimed Divine authority and mine is based on science and modern philosophical principles.

I'm not using it as a source of information, but as a source of moral teaching.

I don't see any difference. Moral teaching is information.

We all ignore great portions of Leviticus, and rightly so, because as we both agree, 21st century Britain is not Judea 2500ish years ago.

For me if it is that unreliable, I see no reason to take any notice of it at all.

However, there are politicians who claim to be inspired by Christian teaching and Christian morality, and how we treat foreigners ("Love them as you love yourself") is right at the core of Jesus's teaching, and the teaching of the Old Testament.

Sure it is, but how does that apply if you are in a lifeboat and the Titanic has just sunk? Let everybody on to the lifeboat and it will sink, killing everybody. What does Christian teaching tell us about that?

Anyone who wants to claim any Christian motivation for their politics needs to explain why they feel able to ignore this sort of compassionate and empathetic moral teaching.

I do not have Christian motivation, but I am compassionate and empathetic. It's just that in this situation, that doesn't make any difference. The lifeboat is full. There are far more people in the sea, or trying to clamber aboard, than the boat can take - many multiples too many. Either I ignore the compassion, or I condemn everybody to a pointless death. My ethics says the former is the only rational choice, and entirely morally justified.

There remain loads of questions about what response is pragmatic and practical, but I'd love at least to hear politicians speaking with kind, unselfish, and welcoming language that makes me proud to be British.

Personally what I want from politicians is realism and pragmatism. As for their talk, I wish they'd just be open and direct, but that is too much to ask for in a democracy.

On Monday, my church is being visited by a local school who have been studying Jesus' morality and asking the question "Is Jesus' teaching relevant in Britain in the 21st century" - or to put it another way - "What would Jesus do?" I will be intrigued to hear their answers when it comes to the subject of immigration!

Personally, I think it is a moot question. I don't think Jesus would be able to understand the modern world.

[UndercoverElephant]

The current context has very little to do with anything that happened in 1st century Judea.

And of course absolutely nothing to do with Brexit.

My concern is overpopulation. If the UK had not left the EU then the current population of the UK would be significantly higher than it is now. Free movement within the EU was a bigger problem than the boat migrants, and it still would be if we had remained.

[PS_RalphW]

Major reductions in BBC sport coverage today as commentators , clubs and footballers join the boycott. The BBC DG Sharp is facing criticisms from many directions. The hard line elements of the government bill are being criticised by some Tory politicians as being too severe, especially the treatment of minors.

Match of the Day consisted of YouTube available highlights of 6 premiere league games without any commentary at all stuck together. Even the theme tune was cut. The YouTube versions come with Sky commentary.

[BritDownUnder]

Here's a suggestion.

Everyone who wants to help the boat people agrees to pay the cost of the looking after these illegal arrivals in the form of a voluntary surtax. Gary and his fellow BBC presenters can pay some extra tax money on their probably large salaries for keeping these people and also to cover the cost of any crimes they carry out.

Sorted.

[UndercoverElephant]

Major reductions in BBC sport coverage today as commentators , clubs and footballers join the boycott. The BBC DG Sharp is facing criticisms from many directions. The hard line elements of the government bill are being criticised by some Tory politicians as being too severe, especially the treatment of minors.

Match of the Day consisted of YouTube available highlights of 6 premiere league games without any commentary at all stuck together. Even the theme tune was cut. The YouTube versions come with Sky commentary.

The lid has been blown of a massive can of seething worms at the BBC, for sure. And it really isn't obvious how to fix it. Lineker won't back down -- he's said in the past that he doesn't want that job for life, and was expected to stand down in the next couple of years anyway. He doesn't need the money, and he's not worried about his reputation, so he won't back down. But the BBC cannot just allow its impartiality rule to crumble to dust either - not after making such a stand in the first place. I doubt the government bill will get watered down as a result -- I think this is really about the BBC, impartiality and free speech, not the actual policy.

[UndercoverElephant]

Here's a suggestion.

Everyone who wants to help the boat people agrees to pay the cost of the looking after these illegal arrivals in the form of a voluntary surtax. Gary and his fellow BBC presenters can pay some extra tax money on their probably large salaries for keeping these people and also to cover the cost of any crimes they carry out.

Sorted.

Not from my point of view. The financial cost of looking after them is quite a long way down my list of concerns. For me this is not primarily about money, or crime. It's about making the UK resilient, self-sufficient and prepared to face what is coming. It's about controlling the population.

[Lurkalot2]

My concern is overpopulation.

I've put that point to some friends only to have the reply that we're not overpopulated.. The point that we have to import so much food seems irrelevant to them. Their response is largely along the lines of "take the wealth of the rich" and it'll solve all our problems. I've nothing against the idea of higher taxes for the wealthy although I do feel the maths are suspect. Some of my friends post on social media about the cost of living crisis , housing crisis , energy crisis although never on a population crisis and I've asked without getting an answer how bringing in hundreds of thousands of dirt poor penniless refuges is going to help those situations. One who has posted countless times about taxing the wealthy has recently put up a post where he calls rich people entering this country as the "real illegal boat people" but cannot see any irony in this.

[UndercoverElephant]

My concern is overpopulation.

I've put that point to some friends only to have the reply that we're not overpopulated.

That is the mainstream view, and it is a result of most people having very limited understanding of ecology or the bigger picture in general. They simply do not understand.

The point that we have to import so much food seems irrelevant to them. Their response is largely along the lines of "take the wealth of the rich" and it'll solve all our problems. I've nothing against the idea of higher taxes for the wealthy although I do feel the maths are suspect.

The inequalities of our society are undesirable and unsustainable, and taking the wealth of the super-rich (eg land reform, wealth taxes) may turn out to be necessary just to prevent anarchy/revolution, but it is not going to make the UK food-secure. You can't eat money.