FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Joe Lycett
Joe Lycett
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Brilliant....that's all" He has triggered the Daily Mail  | |||
| |||
"The Daily Mail gone all snowflakey on us...ha ha" They obviously don’t like freedom of speech and are trying to cancel him,  | |||
| |||
| |||
"I could be wrong but I wonder if The Mail is even more angry because Joe is gay....makes their piss boil even more" Probably, they obviously don’t have a sense of humour | |||
"Brilliant....that's all" I saw that too. Amazing. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Has he finally said something funny?" Pop his name into YouTube and enjoy | |||
"Has he finally said something funny?" Very funny  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Has he finally said something funny?" Apparently 
I find him the most unfunny man in tv  | |||
"Has he finally said something funny? Apparently
I find him the most unfunny man in tv "To be fair, Liz Truss is far funnier than him. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Has he finally said something funny?" Lol very good. However on this occasion I think it was brilliant and seemed to go right over their heads, the fact He's a professional comedian should have been a clue that a serious reply wouldn't be forthcoming. | |||
"There's a meltdown in the comments section on the Mail website now. Generally a lot of Mail-ers bitching about leftie comedians. They seem to be missing the fact Lycett is now v right wing + is fully on their side." He quite literally said what every single one of them was thinking as Truss spoke. Strange that they're angry about being supported.
He was rude about Sunak though so maybe that's it. The Peter Andre comparison was very unfair. | |||
"I think he is great. Just out of interest, give me a heads up on some funny TV types??" I know we've all had enough of these leftie comics. So I'm sure you can only be asking about good and proper right wing comedians. Top of the pile is obviously the OG: Jim davidson. Lycett's making a strong entry as a new convert to the joys of right wing comedy too. But the real up and comer and new queen of right wing comedy is Liz Truss. I hear she's gonna be wheeling out a lot of top class comedy material v soon. | |||
"I think he is great. Just out of interest, give me a heads up on some funny TV types??" Frankie Boyle. | |||
"I think he is great. Just out of interest, give me a heads up on some funny TV types?? Frankie Boyle." I do like him. Wasn't too sure about the comments relating to Boris on The Last Leg. I think what Joe did was so much cleverer | |||
"I think he is great. Just out of interest, give me a heads up on some funny TV types?? Frankie Boyle. I do like him. Wasn't too sure about the comments relating to Boris on The Last Leg. I think what Joe did was so much cleverer " I haven't seen those comments. His earlier stuff was edgy for the sake of being edgy. But I enjoy his election autopsy and year review shows. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I could be wrong but I wonder if The Mail is even more angry because Joe is gay....makes their piss boil even more" No doubt, although he's pansexual, not gay. | |||
"I could be wrong but I wonder if The Mail is even more angry because Joe is gay....makes their piss boil even more No doubt, although he's pansexual, not gay." My bad, sorry. I think anything but heterosexual and The Mail goes bonkers | |||
"I could be wrong but I wonder if The Mail is even more angry because Joe is gay....makes their piss boil even more No doubt, although he's pansexual, not gay." That distinction will cause confusion for the scumbags at the Daily Heil | |||
"Brilliant....that's all He has triggered the Daily Mail "That doesn't take much, to be fair. He was spot on. Best of all, it'll be out there on the internet forever. A constant source of joy; like a well loved library book. As a bonus, Laura had her show hijacked. Lovely. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"He went out there for personal gain irrespective of where the money came from. Another do as I say not what I do guy. Hypocrite. " He is an interesting character, he chooses his moments very carefully and never fails to grab the headlines. Like him or loathe him, he plays the game well. | |||
"He went out there for personal gain irrespective of where the money came from. Another do as I say not what I do guy. Hypocrite. He is an interesting character, he chooses his moments very carefully and never fails to grab the headlines. Like him or loathe him, he plays the game well. " He scored an own goal this time. He has made excellent points in the past. In this digital age there will always be something to bite you on the arse. I would be fucked if I ever got famous. Some fucker will recognise me from a club on here.  | |||
"He went out there for personal gain irrespective of where the money came from. Another do as I say not what I do guy. Hypocrite. He is an interesting character, he chooses his moments very carefully and never fails to grab the headlines. Like him or loathe him, he plays the game well. He scored an own goal this time. He has made excellent points in the past. In this digital age there will always be something to bite you on the arse. I would be fucked if I ever got famous. Some fucker will recognise me from a club on here. "by digital footprint you mean "his book". | |||
"He went out there for personal gain irrespective of where the money came from. Another do as I say not what I do guy. Hypocrite. He is an interesting character, he chooses his moments very carefully and never fails to grab the headlines. Like him or loathe him, he plays the game well. He scored an own goal this time. He has made excellent points in the past. In this digital age there will always be something to bite you on the arse. I would be fucked if I ever got famous. Some fucker will recognise me from a club on here. by digital footprint you mean "his book".
"Well I’m sure it’s available to download | |||
| |||
"Interesting he actually played a few gigs in Qatar a few years ago. I guess that was before the rainbow pound was worth quite as much to him. " Few hundred quid paid by a UK managing agency versus... 10s of Millions of Pounds paid by Qatar to promote a world cup built using slàve labour. Those two are not the same. | |||
"Interesting he actually played a few gigs in Qatar a few years ago. I guess that was before the rainbow pound was worth quite as much to him. Few hundred quid paid by a UK managing agency versus... 10s of Millions of Pounds paid by Qatar to promote a world cup built using slàve labour. Those two are not the same." No. But then that wasn't what his big profile raising call out was about was it? Had nothing to do with sla*ve labour. And all to do with their cultures values toward the lgbtq community. So.. Not OK for becks to take their money .. But OK for Joe to take their money... That's hypocrisy | |||
| |||
| |||
"Interesting he actually played a few gigs in Qatar a few years ago. I guess that was before the rainbow pound was worth quite as much to him. Few hundred quid paid by a UK managing agency versus... 10s of Millions of Pounds paid by Qatar to promote a world cup built using slàve labour. Those two are not the same. No. But then that wasn't what his big profile raising call out was about was it? Had nothing to do with sla*ve labour. And all to do with their cultures values toward the lgbtq community. So.. Not OK for becks to take their money .. But OK for Joe to take their money... That's hypocrisy " Certainly is. | |||
"Interesting he actually played a few gigs in Qatar a few years ago. I guess that was before the rainbow pound was worth quite as much to him. Few hundred quid paid by a UK managing agency versus... 10s of Millions of Pounds paid by Qatar to promote a world cup built using slàve labour. Those two are not the same." Both events happened for work carried out in Qatar, both people got paid to be there and took money for being there. Pretty much the same thing to me.... Joe Lycett saw an opportunity to grab the headlines, as he does frequently. Him declaring it was no secret is laughable and highlights how he considers himself superior. Dismissing Joe Lycett's work in Qatar as not a problem, is a problem if you believe in human rights etc, not so much if your aim is to jump on the bandwagon... | |||
"Interesting he actually played a few gigs in Qatar a few years ago. I guess that was before the rainbow pound was worth quite as much to him. Few hundred quid paid by a UK managing agency versus... 10s of Millions of Pounds paid by Qatar to promote a world cup built using slàve labour. Those two are not the same. Both events happened for work carried out in Qatar, both people got paid to be there and took money for being there. Pretty much the same thing to me.... Joe Lycett saw an opportunity to grab the headlines, as he does frequently. Him declaring it was no secret is laughable and highlights how he considers himself superior. Dismissing Joe Lycett's work in Qatar as not a problem, is a problem if you believe in human rights etc, not so much if your aim is to jump on the bandwagon..." there are some difference imo. Who's money you are taking. Can I not criticise the tory part because I work in the UK? What service that money is buying. Beckham was selling his brand so it could be used to sportwash Qatar. It's directly related to the LGBT and also worker rights in question. Tbh, everyone probably has a Shree of hypocrisy here. But that shouldn't stop us asking hard questions. And can we only call out Lycett if we ourselves aren't hypocrites. | |||
"Interesting he actually played a few gigs in Qatar a few years ago. I guess that was before the rainbow pound was worth quite as much to him. Few hundred quid paid by a UK managing agency versus... 10s of Millions of Pounds paid by Qatar to promote a world cup built using slàve labour. Those two are not the same. Both events happened for work carried out in Qatar, both people got paid to be there and took money for being there. Pretty much the same thing to me.... Joe Lycett saw an opportunity to grab the headlines, as he does frequently. Him declaring it was no secret is laughable and highlights how he considers himself superior. Dismissing Joe Lycett's work in Qatar as not a problem, is a problem if you believe in human rights etc, not so much if your aim is to jump on the bandwagon...there are some difference imo. Who's money you are taking. Can I not criticise the tory part because I work in the UK? What service that money is buying. Beckham was selling his brand so it could be used to sportwash Qatar. It's directly related to the LGBT and also worker rights in question. Tbh, everyone probably has a Shree of hypocrisy here. But that shouldn't stop us asking hard questions. And can we only call out Lycett if we ourselves aren't hypocrites. " The 2 things are the same in my opinion, they both appeared in Qatar to promote events in a country of poor human rights. As i said in an earlier post, love him or loathe Joe Lycett, he knows how to play the game. | |||
"Interesting he actually played a few gigs in Qatar a few years ago. I guess that was before the rainbow pound was worth quite as much to him. Few hundred quid paid by a UK managing agency versus... 10s of Millions of Pounds paid by Qatar to promote a world cup built using slàve labour. Those two are not the same. Both events happened for work carried out in Qatar, both people got paid to be there and took money for being there. Pretty much the same thing to me.... Joe Lycett saw an opportunity to grab the headlines, as he does frequently. Him declaring it was no secret is laughable and highlights how he considers himself superior. Dismissing Joe Lycett's work in Qatar as not a problem, is a problem if you believe in human rights etc, not so much if your aim is to jump on the bandwagon...there are some difference imo. Who's money you are taking. Can I not criticise the tory part because I work in the UK? What service that money is buying. Beckham was selling his brand so it could be used to sportwash Qatar. It's directly related to the LGBT and also worker rights in question. Tbh, everyone probably has a Shree of hypocrisy here. But that shouldn't stop us asking hard questions. And can we only call out Lycett if we ourselves aren't hypocrites. The 2 things are the same in my opinion, they both appeared in Qatar to promote events in a country of poor human rights. As i said in an earlier post, love him or loathe Joe Lycett, he knows how to play the game. " Unfortunately people buy into his holier than though rhetoric without a moments thought | |||
"Interesting he actually played a few gigs in Qatar a few years ago. I guess that was before the rainbow pound was worth quite as much to him. Few hundred quid paid by a UK managing agency versus... 10s of Millions of Pounds paid by Qatar to promote a world cup built using slàve labour. Those two are not the same. Both events happened for work carried out in Qatar, both people got paid to be there and took money for being there. Pretty much the same thing to me.... Joe Lycett saw an opportunity to grab the headlines, as he does frequently. Him declaring it was no secret is laughable and highlights how he considers himself superior. Dismissing Joe Lycett's work in Qatar as not a problem, is a problem if you believe in human rights etc, not so much if your aim is to jump on the bandwagon...there are some difference imo. Who's money you are taking. Can I not criticise the tory part because I work in the UK? What service that money is buying. Beckham was selling his brand so it could be used to sportwash Qatar. It's directly related to the LGBT and also worker rights in question. Tbh, everyone probably has a Shree of hypocrisy here. But that shouldn't stop us asking hard questions. And can we only call out Lycett if we ourselves aren't hypocrites. The 2 things are the same in my opinion, they both appeared in Qatar to promote events in a country of poor human rights. As i said in an earlier post, love him or loathe Joe Lycett, he knows how to play the game. Unfortunately people buy into his holier than though rhetoric without a moments thought " I've given it some thought and I think he is "holier" than Beckham. That doesn't make him perfect, but then I don't even think he overly played the moral high ground hard. Question one is whether you'd back beckham and feel there was no issue with getting paid by qatai authorities for (imo at least) the service of sportwashing. If you feel there is nothing to call out you are possibly going to have different views about lycett than if you feel there was an issue here to discuss. | |||
"Interesting he actually played a few gigs in Qatar a few years ago. I guess that was before the rainbow pound was worth quite as much to him. Few hundred quid paid by a UK managing agency versus... 10s of Millions of Pounds paid by Qatar to promote a world cup built using slàve labour. Those two are not the same. Both events happened for work carried out in Qatar, both people got paid to be there and took money for being there. Pretty much the same thing to me.... Joe Lycett saw an opportunity to grab the headlines, as he does frequently. Him declaring it was no secret is laughable and highlights how he considers himself superior. Dismissing Joe Lycett's work in Qatar as not a problem, is a problem if you believe in human rights etc, not so much if your aim is to jump on the bandwagon...there are some difference imo. Who's money you are taking. Can I not criticise the tory part because I work in the UK? What service that money is buying. Beckham was selling his brand so it could be used to sportwash Qatar. It's directly related to the LGBT and also worker rights in question. Tbh, everyone probably has a Shree of hypocrisy here. But that shouldn't stop us asking hard questions. And can we only call out Lycett if we ourselves aren't hypocrites. The 2 things are the same in my opinion, they both appeared in Qatar to promote events in a country of poor human rights. As i said in an earlier post, love him or loathe Joe Lycett, he knows how to play the game. Unfortunately people buy into his holier than though rhetoric without a moments thought I've given it some thought and I think he is "holier" than Beckham. That doesn't make him perfect, but then I don't even think he overly played the moral high ground hard. Question one is whether you'd back beckham and feel there was no issue with getting paid by qatai authorities for (imo at least) the service of sportwashing. If you feel there is nothing to call out you are possibly going to have different views about lycett than if you feel there was an issue here to discuss. " The point is they both have Qatar money and involvement on their CV's... One of them benefited twice. He plays the game beautifully, as this thread demonstrates | |||
"Interesting he actually played a few gigs in Qatar a few years ago. I guess that was before the rainbow pound was worth quite as much to him. Few hundred quid paid by a UK managing agency versus... 10s of Millions of Pounds paid by Qatar to promote a world cup built using slàve labour. Those two are not the same. Both events happened for work carried out in Qatar, both people got paid to be there and took money for being there. Pretty much the same thing to me.... Joe Lycett saw an opportunity to grab the headlines, as he does frequently. Him declaring it was no secret is laughable and highlights how he considers himself superior. Dismissing Joe Lycett's work in Qatar as not a problem, is a problem if you believe in human rights etc, not so much if your aim is to jump on the bandwagon...there are some difference imo. Who's money you are taking. Can I not criticise the tory part because I work in the UK? What service that money is buying. Beckham was selling his brand so it could be used to sportwash Qatar. It's directly related to the LGBT and also worker rights in question. Tbh, everyone probably has a Shree of hypocrisy here. But that shouldn't stop us asking hard questions. And can we only call out Lycett if we ourselves aren't hypocrites. The 2 things are the same in my opinion, they both appeared in Qatar to promote events in a country of poor human rights. As i said in an earlier post, love him or loathe Joe Lycett, he knows how to play the game. Unfortunately people buy into his holier than though rhetoric without a moments thought I've given it some thought and I think he is "holier" than Beckham. That doesn't make him perfect, but then I don't even think he overly played the moral high ground hard. Question one is whether you'd back beckham and feel there was no issue with getting paid by qatai authorities for (imo at least) the service of sportwashing. If you feel there is nothing to call out you are possibly going to have different views about lycett than if you feel there was an issue here to discuss. " Sure. And then I can ask you the same question of Lycett. As in do you feel there are no issues with Lycett being paid by them to perform in Qatar for the services of legitimising their values? As to becks... I have no love for him at all. If he has been chosen to help promote the world Cup which was awarded to qatar, an Arab state, of predominantly Islamic values and which 32 nations participated in. Then we shouldn't expect everything to be conducted with western values, nor should we be so arrogant as to presume that all countries must adopt them. Do I think it was wrong of becks to legally earn a living? Who am I to judge anyone else? What I do however think is that if I am critical of one person for being paid by Qatar. Then I must be critical of everyone else who has been paid by Qatar. Or risk being called a hypocrite. | |||
"Interesting he actually played a few gigs in Qatar a few years ago. I guess that was before the rainbow pound was worth quite as much to him. Few hundred quid paid by a UK managing agency versus... 10s of Millions of Pounds paid by Qatar to promote a world cup built using slàve labour. Those two are not the same. Both events happened for work carried out in Qatar, both people got paid to be there and took money for being there. Pretty much the same thing to me.... Joe Lycett saw an opportunity to grab the headlines, as he does frequently. Him declaring it was no secret is laughable and highlights how he considers himself superior. Dismissing Joe Lycett's work in Qatar as not a problem, is a problem if you believe in human rights etc, not so much if your aim is to jump on the bandwagon...there are some difference imo. Who's money you are taking. Can I not criticise the tory part because I work in the UK? What service that money is buying. Beckham was selling his brand so it could be used to sportwash Qatar. It's directly related to the LGBT and also worker rights in question. Tbh, everyone probably has a Shree of hypocrisy here. But that shouldn't stop us asking hard questions. And can we only call out Lycett if we ourselves aren't hypocrites. The 2 things are the same in my opinion, they both appeared in Qatar to promote events in a country of poor human rights. As i said in an earlier post, love him or loathe Joe Lycett, he knows how to play the game. Unfortunately people buy into his holier than though rhetoric without a moments thought I've given it some thought and I think he is "holier" than Beckham. That doesn't make him perfect, but then I don't even think he overly played the moral high ground hard. Question one is whether you'd back beckham and feel there was no issue with getting paid by qatai authorities for (imo at least) the service of sportwashing. If you feel there is nothing to call out you are possibly going to have different views about lycett than if you feel there was an issue here to discuss. Sure. And then I can ask you the same question of Lycett. As in do you feel there are no issues with Lycett being paid by them to perform in Qatar for the services of legitimising their values? As to becks... I have no love for him at all. If he has been chosen to help promote the world Cup which was awarded to qatar, an Arab state, of predominantly Islamic values and which 32 nations participated in. Then we shouldn't expect everything to be conducted with western values, nor should we be so arrogant as to presume that all countries must adopt them. Do I think it was wrong of becks to legally earn a living? Who am I to judge anyone else? What I do however think is that if I am critical of one person for being paid by Qatar. Then I must be critical of everyone else who has been paid by Qatar. Or risk being called a hypocrite. " I have a less issues with lycety. The source of the money was different (it wasn't even directly a Qatar company let alone Qatar itself) The service he was providing was different. Many people who have LGBT or other issues in their radar likely go through conflict when considering jobs in emirite countries. Is it better ignore and boycott, or go and influence. In his case it probably wasnt the decision if make. I could look myself in the mirror if i did go. Of course, Beckham was legally fine to go there and work. This isn't about legal aspects but values. Without saying if values ABC are "right" l, if you believe in them, should you take money from an employer who has made them illegal? If I took this money, that would be more hypothcritical than someone who has done a gig in Qatar calling me out. I'm guessing we are on different pages with whether someone who takes money from someone who holds very different values to the extent they made them illegal is hypocritical. Which of course, is fine. It's fun seeing different views. | |||
"Interesting he actually played a few gigs in Qatar a few years ago. I guess that was before the rainbow pound was worth quite as much to him. Few hundred quid paid by a UK managing agency versus... 10s of Millions of Pounds paid by Qatar to promote a world cup built using slàve labour. Those two are not the same. Both events happened for work carried out in Qatar, both people got paid to be there and took money for being there. Pretty much the same thing to me.... Joe Lycett saw an opportunity to grab the headlines, as he does frequently. Him declaring it was no secret is laughable and highlights how he considers himself superior. Dismissing Joe Lycett's work in Qatar as not a problem, is a problem if you believe in human rights etc, not so much if your aim is to jump on the bandwagon...there are some difference imo. Who's money you are taking. Can I not criticise the tory part because I work in the UK? What service that money is buying. Beckham was selling his brand so it could be used to sportwash Qatar. It's directly related to the LGBT and also worker rights in question. Tbh, everyone probably has a Shree of hypocrisy here. But that shouldn't stop us asking hard questions. And can we only call out Lycett if we ourselves aren't hypocrites. The 2 things are the same in my opinion, they both appeared in Qatar to promote events in a country of poor human rights. As i said in an earlier post, love him or loathe Joe Lycett, he knows how to play the game. Unfortunately people buy into his holier than though rhetoric without a moments thought I've given it some thought and I think he is "holier" than Beckham. That doesn't make him perfect, but then I don't even think he overly played the moral high ground hard. Question one is whether you'd back beckham and feel there was no issue with getting paid by qatai authorities for (imo at least) the service of sportwashing. If you feel there is nothing to call out you are possibly going to have different views about lycett than if you feel there was an issue here to discuss. Sure. And then I can ask you the same question of Lycett. As in do you feel there are no issues with Lycett being paid by them to perform in Qatar for the services of legitimising their values? As to becks... I have no love for him at all. If he has been chosen to help promote the world Cup which was awarded to qatar, an Arab state, of predominantly Islamic values and which 32 nations participated in. Then we shouldn't expect everything to be conducted with western values, nor should we be so arrogant as to presume that all countries must adopt them. Do I think it was wrong of becks to legally earn a living? Who am I to judge anyone else? What I do however think is that if I am critical of one person for being paid by Qatar. Then I must be critical of everyone else who has been paid by Qatar. Or risk being called a hypocrite. I have a less issues with lycety. The source of the money was different (it wasn't even directly a Qatar company let alone Qatar itself) The service he was providing was different. Many people who have LGBT or other issues in their radar likely go through conflict when considering jobs in emirite countries. Is it better ignore and boycott, or go and influence. In his case it probably wasnt the decision if make. I could look myself in the mirror if i did go. Of course, Beckham was legally fine to go there and work. This isn't about legal aspects but values. Without saying if values ABC are "right" l, if you believe in them, should you take money from an employer who has made them illegal? If I took this money, that would be more hypothcritical than someone who has done a gig in Qatar calling me out. I'm guessing we are on different pages with whether someone who takes money from someone who holds very different values to the extent they made them illegal is hypocritical. Which of course, is fine. It's fun seeing different views. " You seem to think Lycett was on a crusade to show Qatar the errors of their ways by working there... He was paid to go out there and perform, he did his job in Qatar, was paid and left. He makes people feel he is crusading and standing up for those being wronged, that is his gig now, and doesn't he do it well? | |||
"Interesting he actually played a few gigs in Qatar a few years ago. I guess that was before the rainbow pound was worth quite as much to him. Few hundred quid paid by a UK managing agency versus... 10s of Millions of Pounds paid by Qatar to promote a world cup built using slàve labour. Those two are not the same. Both events happened for work carried out in Qatar, both people got paid to be there and took money for being there. Pretty much the same thing to me.... Joe Lycett saw an opportunity to grab the headlines, as he does frequently. Him declaring it was no secret is laughable and highlights how he considers himself superior. Dismissing Joe Lycett's work in Qatar as not a problem, is a problem if you believe in human rights etc, not so much if your aim is to jump on the bandwagon...there are some difference imo. Who's money you are taking. Can I not criticise the tory part because I work in the UK? What service that money is buying. Beckham was selling his brand so it could be used to sportwash Qatar. It's directly related to the LGBT and also worker rights in question. Tbh, everyone probably has a Shree of hypocrisy here. But that shouldn't stop us asking hard questions. And can we only call out Lycett if we ourselves aren't hypocrites. The 2 things are the same in my opinion, they both appeared in Qatar to promote events in a country of poor human rights. As i said in an earlier post, love him or loathe Joe Lycett, he knows how to play the game. Unfortunately people buy into his holier than though rhetoric without a moments thought I've given it some thought and I think he is "holier" than Beckham. That doesn't make him perfect, but then I don't even think he overly played the moral high ground hard. Question one is whether you'd back beckham and feel there was no issue with getting paid by qatai authorities for (imo at least) the service of sportwashing. If you feel there is nothing to call out you are possibly going to have different views about lycett than if you feel there was an issue here to discuss. Sure. And then I can ask you the same question of Lycett. As in do you feel there are no issues with Lycett being paid by them to perform in Qatar for the services of legitimising their values? As to becks... I have no love for him at all. If he has been chosen to help promote the world Cup which was awarded to qatar, an Arab state, of predominantly Islamic values and which 32 nations participated in. Then we shouldn't expect everything to be conducted with western values, nor should we be so arrogant as to presume that all countries must adopt them. Do I think it was wrong of becks to legally earn a living? Who am I to judge anyone else? What I do however think is that if I am critical of one person for being paid by Qatar. Then I must be critical of everyone else who has been paid by Qatar. Or risk being called a hypocrite. I have a less issues with lycety. The source of the money was different (it wasn't even directly a Qatar company let alone Qatar itself) The service he was providing was different. Many people who have LGBT or other issues in their radar likely go through conflict when considering jobs in emirite countries. Is it better ignore and boycott, or go and influence. In his case it probably wasnt the decision if make. I could look myself in the mirror if i did go. Of course, Beckham was legally fine to go there and work. This isn't about legal aspects but values. Without saying if values ABC are "right" l, if you believe in them, should you take money from an employer who has made them illegal? If I took this money, that would be more hypothcritical than someone who has done a gig in Qatar calling me out. I'm guessing we are on different pages with whether someone who takes money from someone who holds very different values to the extent they made them illegal is hypocritical. Which of course, is fine. It's fun seeing different views. You seem to think Lycett was on a crusade to show Qatar the errors of their ways by working there... He was paid to go out there and perform, he did his job in Qatar, was paid and left. He makes people feel he is crusading and standing up for those being wronged, that is his gig now, and doesn't he do it well?" I don't think that at all. Im saying that there is a dilemma when being asked to do a gig in a country like qatar. He's called out Beckham for taking work that is appears inconsistent with Beckham's values, both in who was paying him, and what the job was likely to entail. Imo, that's a good discussion to have. It reads across into other areas too (see companies removing their business from Russia, and at a personal level how much should look at our employees). It is, imo, a more powerful conversation than the one the Sun is succeeding in us having. | |||
