Lineker Backs Just Stop Oil

[DTCwordfan]

saying their 'interventions' are justified and legit.

What a bloody hypocrite like a lot of these pseudo-do-gooders.

The evidence - now, of course, with his BBC income and other streams behind him, he can afford to drive around in a nice car. He mentions his super-smart Jaguar F-Pace, worth around £50k, on Twitter.

However, he's also been seen riding a Mercedes SL550 (around £85k), BMW 650i convertible (around £75k), Range Rover Sport (from £65k) and a Jaguar XJ (also from 65k).

This is blatant hypocrisy......what do you think?

[Stableford]

What a moron. But then, we did know that already.

[Old_Geezer]

Really ? Well I ought not be surprised. He seems to have a kink for supporting all the daft causes. Would've be out of character to have applied common sense.

[Old_Geezer]

Do you think that they put something in the crisps ?

[andy-hughes]

He's an idiot, but because he's a high profile highly paid idiot, his crass opinions get shared far more than they deserve to be.

[Bobbisox1]

Oops a hand slap for me then ;0/

[douglas9401]

Possibly further evidence that ex footballers carry brain injuries.

[Bobbisox1]

I agree with A-H only in a different tone, Andy you’re more eloquent than I am about Gary :0))

[Deskdiary]

“Lineker backs Just Stop Oil”.

Quelle surprise.

[nicebloke1]

Can someone remind him that millions of football fans use trains, cars, coaches and planes, and thats why he has so much money, past and present earnings.

[LadyCG]

He's an absolute ***.

[fender62]

it's like a drug to the rich, find a cause as long as it does not effect them in there countryside residence away from the cities and urban sprawl and everything that goes with that, generals watching a battle with binoculars, how many did we loose today, mere trifle...where's my cognac..

[Deskdiary]

I don’t begrudge anybody their money, in fact I’m of the mindset “bloody good for them” and I wish I was that successful, but I do save a very special loathing for those that preach to us plebs about the environment and take private planes or crisscross the Atlantic with gay abandon…the worse being Mr and Mrs Markle and Luvvie-in-Chief Emma Thompson.

The message is clear - it’s OK for us to do it, but not you plebs.

[Ellipsis]

He's not a hypocrite because he isn't saying that he would be a JSO protester. He's saying that JSO protesters are valid, even though he wouldn't do it himself. It's a version of: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

In this case, the "say it" is unbalanced - on the one hand, you have oil companies with loads of money and therefore a large platform saying don't worry, everything is alright, believe us. On the other hand, you have individuals who, without a protest, have no platform. The protest gives some amplification for the protesters.

For what it's worth ... I wouldn't be a protester myself, I still have nice cars and take flights to foreign holidays for leisure purposes for example. But I can allow JSO without agreeing with it. That said, sitting on the Silverstone track while cars are running is stupid and should not be allowed. We don't want another Emily Davison. But harmless protest - throwing confetti on Wimbledon - is annoying but fair enough if they want to accept the consequences.

[Stableford]

JSO protestors aren't valid at all, they endanger lives every single day with their moronic antics, and should be roundly condemned by anyone with a shred of public responsibility. Surely they could be tasered rather than be allowed to disrupt the lives of ordinary, hardworking people and putting us all in danger? Gary Lineker needs to keep his trap shut.

[Spungle]

Please, what is valid about a group of overpriveleged donksplats sitting in front of ambulances and stopping people getting to work, to funerals and to their cancer treatments? How is this valid? Some people are full of absolute Bollinger.

[andy-hughes]

Ellipsis - // But harmless protest - throwing confetti on Wimbledon - is annoying but fair enough if they want to accept the consequences. //

Saying their actions are 'harmless' depends on your definition of harm.

It's like 'victimless crime' - the idea that because no-one is actually hurt by what they do infers that it does no damage, and that is patently not true.

Their attention-seeking idiocy disrupts the lives of people going about their business, be that travelling around, to work and so on, or enjoying a sporting event for which they have paid money to enjoy.

No, it's not 'harmless', it's giving a green light to people who think they have a right to force their views on strangers, simply because they can.

[Bobbisox1]

Spungld ,please can I pinch donkeysplats ?
I love it ;0)

[Bobbisox1]

* spungle