 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
So Gary Neville is getting attacked by the Prime Minister, Conservative MPs and supporters for his comments on workers rights and pay in Qatar and also the nurses and other workers pay here.
He has been criticised for using a football platform for making political comments. Also for hypocrisy, for accepting to go there and taking the punditary job and essentially tarred money.
Now both these are valid arguments. But by the same token, were the people who are criticising him now saying the same thing, when him and others especially the BBCs Gary Lineker more than most, attacking only the Qatari government. Were they criticising them for mixing football and politics. Or is it only now because GN mentioned the UK disputes.
Also by the same token, should MPs and politicians stick to politics and not comment on any British sports success, by standing in Parliament and trying gain favourable opinions by praising and congratulating etc.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
I think that regardless of whether Gary Neville (or any other high profile individual) uses his platform to make a statement, the question really should be “was what he said factually incorrect?” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There definitely a scale of treating people shitty and I doubt he is saying we are on a level with Qatar. But there is a line to be drawn from minimum standards and that's a discussion to be had.
Rumours that Nadine is trying to nationalise ITV so they can keep better tabs in its presenters are, as yet, unfounded. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" He has been criticised for using a football platform for making political comments"
I've never understood this concept that because a person may have a platform derived from elsewhere, they are criticised for using said platform to highlight political views.
I would have thought it's a perfect opportunity to use a wide-reaching platform.
Politics and political decisions affects every person in this country, whether we like it or not. It affects many other outside the country too.
The more platforms that discussion encompasses, the better in my opinion.
These discussions ARE the life-blood, and AFFECT the life-blood of millions of people.
They do not exist in a vacuum nor should they be side-lined.
They permeate every aspect of life, ergo they are open for discussion at any time by anyone.
They are not sacrosanct and to be kept away from certain things.
If you give air to discussion you inform, involve and incorporate.
If you extinguish it, you oppress.
The platform is irrelevant. It's the message that matters.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The Qatar world cup has been politicised for about 8 years and was certainly politicised continually throughout the tournament yet when problems we have here are legitimately brought up, not comparing issues, just merely pointing out that Britain isn't perfect either, people lose their minds because football shouldn't be politicised. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"The Qatar world cup has been politicised for about 8 years and was certainly politicised continually throughout the tournament yet when problems we have here are legitimately brought up, not comparing issues, just merely pointing out that Britain isn't perfect either, people lose their minds because football shouldn't be politicised."
Celebrities shouldn't be short-circuiting democracy, but perhaps they shouldn't be in a position where they feel that they had to.
What would have happened if Marcus Radford had "stayed in his lane"? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
