This Lineker thing

[roverstillidie91]

https://twitter.com/AuschwitzMuseum/status/1601171008139845633

https://twitter.com/SairaIbrahim/status/1634865598994984960

[Bentley Bullet]

BST. I think anyone who comes out with comments that compare our government to that of Nazi Germany has the right to say so but should be aware of the consequences of it. A high-profile person like Lineker should know better than to provoke a reaction with such a statement, especially from his employers, who have warned employees not to bring the BBC into disrepute over concerns of impartiality.

 Everyone has the right to freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of what they have said.

 Now then, I'll ask you again. Are you saying free speech shouldn't have consequences?

[BillyStubbsTears]

You're like the worst form of politician BB.

A straight, simple question gets a dissembling answer.

The question was, do you think Lineker should leave been made to stand down from his job for what he said

That simply requires a yes or no, because presumably YOU know what you think.

It doesn't require a philosophy lesson.

You are so forthright usually, I cannot fathom why you would hide your opinion on this behind this bluster.

[Bentley Bullet]

If his employers deem what he said a good reason to suspend him then yes, I think he should be suspended. If Lineker appeals and wins, he should be reinstated.

Now then, I'll ask you again. Are you saying free speech shouldn't have consequences? No philosophy bullshit, just a plain and simple Yes or No will suffice.

[BillyStubbsTears]

That wasn't what I asked as you well know.

I said do YOU think he should have been made to stand down.

Bizarre that you won't tell us what your opinion is.

It's almost as if...

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'll humour you while you are trying to figure out what you think and answer your really badly posed question.

Do I think free speech SHOULD have consequences?

No. I don't think Martin Luther King SHOULD have been shot for speaking out about prejudice.

Do I think free speech DOES have consequences?

Yes, of course it does. But those consequences are not always fair, proportionate or rational.

Really odd that you should ask such a question, but there you go.

Over to you.

[DonnyOsmond]

BST. I think anyone who comes out with comments that compare our government to that of Nazi Germany has the right to say so but should be aware of the consequences of it. A high-profile person like Lineker should know better than to provoke a reaction with such a statement, especially from his employers, who have warned employees not to bring the BBC into disrepute over concerns of impartiality.

 Everyone has the right to freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of what they have said.

 Now then, I'll ask you again. Are you saying free speech shouldn't have consequences?

Have you actually took any time to understand what he was saying or why? Instead of just declaring that our government can't be compared to language used by Germany in the 30s in anyway, despite context.

[Bentley Bullet]

I'll humour you while you are trying to figure out what you think and answer your really badly posed question.

Do I think free speech SHOULD have consequences?

No. I don't think Martin Luther King SHOULD have been shot for speaking out about prejudice.

Do I think free speech DOES have consequences?

Yes, of course it does. But those consequences are not always fair, proportionate or rational.

Really odd that you should ask such a question, but there you go.

Over to you.

Us? haha, you do make me larf!
From the information I've got on it so far, and in view of it apparently not being the first time he's overstepped the mark, I think YES, his employers were right to suspend him until they came to an agreement on his future conduct.

 Now then, I'll ask you yet again. Are you saying free speech shouldn't have consequences? No philosophy bullshit, just a plain and simple Yes or No will suffice.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I've answered you clearly BB.

No I don't think automatically that free speech SHOULD have consequences.

Thank you for finally clearing up that you do believe in Cancel Culture. You could have avoided a lot of typing if you'd just said that straight out.

So presumably you also think that Sugar should have been disciplined by the BBC for a 3 year tirade of abuse aimed at Corbyn and Abbot, including a call for people not to vote Labour in the 2019 election campaign?

Simple yes/no. None of your usual verbosity.

[BillyStubbsTears]

This is illuminating by the way.

Bessie on the other thread said the Lineker thing should have been dealt with by BBC HR.

It wasn't of course. It was dealt with by the DG whose boss is a Tory party donor.

Here's what someone who used to work in BBC HR, dealing with cases of impartiality conflict thinks about the situation.

https://mobile.twitter.com/andybell2000/status/1634208918564904962

[Bentley Bullet]

I've answered you clearly BB.

No I don't think automatically that free speech SHOULD have consequences.

Thank you for finally clearing up that you do believe in Cancel Culture. You could have avoided a lot of typing if you'd just said that straight out.

So presumably you also think that Sugar should have been disciplined by the BBC for a 3 year tirade of abuse aimed at Corbyn and Abbot, including a call for people not to vote Labour in the 2019 election campaign?

Simple yes/no. None of your usual verbosity.

I've answered you clearly BB.

No I don't think automatically that free speech SHOULD have consequences.

Thank you for finally clearing up that you do believe in Cancel Culture. You could have avoided a lot of typing if you'd just said that straight out.

So presumably you also think that Sugar should have been disciplined by the BBC for a 3 year tirade of abuse aimed at Corbyn and Abbot, including a call for people not to vote Labour in the 2019 election campaign?

Simple yes/no. None of your usual verbosity.

What do you mean by automatically?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Martin Luther King being shot was a consequence of his free speech. I don't think that should automatically have been the consequence.

Alan Sugar? Remember?

[Campsall rover]

Apparently the BBC top brass are really annoyed that a major figure at the BBC is discussing politics online when not at the BBC.

If you're going to give an opinion or start a debate it's always best not to begin with a false premise.

The BBC are apparently annoyed because Gary Lineker made a wholly inappropriate comparison between current UK politicians and those of Nazi Germany.

Lineker often tweets his opinion on political matters including most recently on Sue Gray, the Northern Ireland Protocol etc - there is no evidence that the BBC top brass expressed annoyance with those opinions.

Lineker is a celebrity presenter and not a journalist. He's therefore perfectly free IMO (and under his BBC contract) to express his political opinions just as much as anyone else.

The debate really is about whether the BBC should be accepting of it's celebrity employees making inappropriate public comments. What constitutes inappropriate. And where should the line be drawn.

Any comparison of today's politicians to Nazi Germany is clearly inappropriate. Regardless of Lineker's underlying view which I agree with re being against the Immigration Bill.

His comment is not just inappropriate but historically ignorant and childish. His failure to apologies (on the Nazi Germany comparison not on his opposition to the Bill) is really doing him no favours. I therefore find it impossible to have any sympathy for him.

Has he crossed a line whereby the BBC should dispense with his services? IMO no but if I were his boss I'd be calling him in for a chat and to give a warning on future behaviour. Which, reading between the lines, is exactly what the BBC are doing.

Got it spot on Branton. The voice of reason. Imo you are the only one who gets it.

For Gary Linaker to compare this Uk government with Nazi Germany is totally out of order. There is no comparison, none whatsoever. GL wasn’t even born when the Nazi’s were murdering millions of innocent people due to religion and ethnicity.
Does he seriously think this government are doing what they did.  He needs to think before he posts.

Yes it’s a democracy we live in. We are entitled to Free speech thank you. We don’t want a to be scared to speak as in Russia or China for fear of being locked up or even killed. Of course we don’t want that, but there has to be a line drawn and GL crossed that line.

He should be sat down and have this spelt out to him and asked to apologise for the words he used.
If he does that and is genuine about it, then that should be the end of the matter.
If he doesn’t then the BBC are left with little choice but to dismiss him.

BST what Alan Sugar said about Corbyn or Diane Abbott was nothing to compare.
Don’t try that for your own political agenda it’s not befitting and doesn’t paint you in a good light. Sorry to have to say that.

Yes I do agree the BBC are politically bias towards the Tory’s and it is not good to see. They should be 100% impartial at all times.

Believe it or not I might even vote Labour at the next election for the 1st time ever.
This government are making a pigs ear of running the economy imo. And I am losing patience with them.

This coming budget needs to be a massive improvement on the policies of last 2 yrs.
The personal tax allowance needs to be in increased not frozen for a start. How does the PM and Chancellor think that will help people on lower incomes and OAP’ who are still working for a living.
Cloud cuckoo land they are in.

[DonnyOsmond]

Apparently the BBC top brass are really annoyed that a major figure at the BBC is discussing politics online when not at the BBC.

If you're going to give an opinion or start a debate it's always best not to begin with a false premise.

The BBC are apparently annoyed because Gary Lineker made a wholly inappropriate comparison between current UK politicians and those of Nazi Germany.

Lineker often tweets his opinion on political matters including most recently on Sue Gray, the Northern Ireland Protocol etc - there is no evidence that the BBC top brass expressed annoyance with those opinions.

Lineker is a celebrity presenter and not a journalist. He's therefore perfectly free IMO (and under his BBC contract) to express his political opinions just as much as anyone else.

The debate really is about whether the BBC should be accepting of it's celebrity employees making inappropriate public comments. What constitutes inappropriate. And where should the line be drawn.

Any comparison of today's politicians to Nazi Germany is clearly inappropriate. Regardless of Lineker's underlying view which I agree with re being against the Immigration Bill.

His comment is not just inappropriate but historically ignorant and childish. His failure to apologies (on the Nazi Germany comparison not on his opposition to the Bill) is really doing him no favours. I therefore find it impossible to have any sympathy for him.

Has he crossed a line whereby the BBC should dispense with his services? IMO no but if I were his boss I'd be calling him in for a chat and to give a warning on future behaviour. Which, reading between the lines, is exactly what the BBC are doing.

Got it spot on Branton. The voice of reason. Imo you are the only one who gets it.

For Gary Linaker to compare this Uk government with Nazi Germany is totally out of order. There is no comparison, none whatsoever. GL wasn’t even born when the Nazi’s were murdering millions of innocent people due to religion and ethnicity.
Does he seriously think this government are doing what they did. 

You say Branton is the only one who gets it but it doesn't sound like you get it...

At no point did Lineker compare the Tory party to what the Nazis did during WW2 and it's getting exhausting that people are adding 2+2 and getting Banana. He suggested language used by the Tory party was similar to that what was used in Germany in the 30s.

If you look at what has been said within the last couple of years you may agree with the general point.

We've had the Home Secretary call asylum seekers an invasion.

We had her siding with aggressive protestors and blaming the victims.

We've stripped the rights of asylum seekers if they were to come here, when the only way possible to claim asylum in the UK is to get to the UK!

Attacked our rights to peacefully protest.

Etc, etc..

The persecution of the Jews didn't start with the Holocaust, it started with blaming the Jews for the countrys problems.

[Bentley Bullet]

BST, if you don't think freedom of speech should have consequences, did you agree with Twitter banning Donald Trump?

[Branton Red]

Branton

There's a spectrum.

Fascism gains acceptance and responsibility by worming concepts into people's heads

Dehumanisation of "The Other" - e.g. saying we are being invaded by illegal aliens

Delegitimising of dissent - e.g. saying that the leftwing activist "blob" were being disloyal to the nation.

Calling on some mythical national will to take precedence over legal obligations.

All those methods were used in Germany in the early days of Hitler's ascent. All of them were used in the past few weeks by Braverman.

You choose two examples. I e from when Hitler was a nobody, a raving street fighter, a minor joke figure, before he realised he needed to couch his ideas in the sort of language I give examples of above. The other after fascism had triumphed and was out in the open.

You don't actually think that the German people in the 1930s woke up one morning and said "Right. Time to clear out the untermensch" do you?

That came from a decade of ground laying. If normalising the tropes in the examples I give above.

Billy

Just seen this response on the main forum. Replying on here given this is definitely "Off Topic"

You are (I suspect unintentionally) rewriting history to suit your argument.

The Nazi's emphatically did not tone down their evil rhetoric or subtly attempt to slowly draw people into their depraved world view. They were consistently explicit throughout the 30s (and 20s).

Take these 2 election posters from the 1932 elections collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn3777 and hist1049-20.omeka.fas.harvard.edu/items/show/20. These elections were held shortly after Hitler came 2nd in presidential elections (no longer a nobody) but before the Nazis had any power (or had "triumphed").

The first on a flame red background shows an Aryan worker holding a pitchfork containing caricatures including communists and Jews. It reads "We farmers clear away the rubbish. We farmers vote National Socialist". I shouldn't need to explain what 30s farmers would do with a pitchfork of rubbish and hence why the flame red background is significant.

The second reads "“Over 300 National Socialists died for you — murdered by Marxist sub humanity!!!" Referring to the violent street fights conducted between Nazis and Communists previously. I would also point out in context that Nazi propaganda consistently claimed (with no evidence) that Communism was a Jewish doctrine and that the Communists were in league with Jews and the two were effectively inseparable.

What German people did wake up to in the late 20s and early 30s was finding, if they had savings or even cash in hand, that they were poorer than the day before. Many woke up in increasingly abject poverty.

Democracy was introduced to Germany after WW1. By 1932 it was seen to have failed. In those elections of '32 the majority of Germans rejected democracy in favour of the 2 parties promising a return to dictatorship with strongmen leaders - the Communists and the Nazis.

That's the backdrop to the Nazis gaining power in Germany in the 30s. Not the kind of subtle drip drip of ideology you are accusing Braverman of. Your analogy is historically completely inaccurate.

I suspect Gary Lineker may well be equally ignorant of the evil language used by the Nazi's throughout the 1930s. And therefore ignorant of why it is highly inappropriate to compare 30s Nazi language to that of today's politicians irrespective of how much he might disapprove of Braverman's politics or the Immigration Bill.

Hence why I, if I were running the BBC, would not have fired or suspended him, but given him a warning. But also why I have little sympathy for him given that he has failed to apologies for his ill-judged comparison.

Like I said on the other thread. Many people commenting on this and defending Lineker's tweet need a lesson in history.

[Branton Red]

Got it spot on Branton. The voice of reason. Imo you are the only one who gets it.

For Gary Linaker to compare this Uk government with Nazi Germany is totally out of order. There is no comparison, none whatsoever. GL wasn’t even born when the Nazi’s were murdering millions of innocent people due to religion and ethnicity.
Does he seriously think this government are doing what they did.  He needs to think before he posts.

Yes it’s a democracy we live in. We are entitled to Free speech thank you. We don’t want a to be scared to speak as in Russia or China for fear of being locked up or even killed. Of course we don’t want that, but there has to be a line drawn and GL crossed that line.

He should be sat down and have this spelt out to him and asked to apologise for the words he used.
If he does that and is genuine about it, then that should be the end of the matter.
If he doesn’t then the BBC are left with little choice but to dismiss him.

BST what Alan Sugar said about Corbyn or Diane Abbott was nothing to compare.
Don’t try that for your own political agenda it’s not befitting and doesn’t paint you in a good light. Sorry to have to say that.

Yes I do agree the BBC are politically bias towards the Tory’s and it is not good to see. They should be 100% impartial at all times.

Believe it or not I might even vote Labour at the next election for the 1st time ever.
This government are making a pigs ear of running the economy imo. And I am losing patience with them.

This coming budget needs to be a massive improvement on the policies of last 2 yrs.
The personal tax allowance needs to be in increased not frozen for a start. How does the PM and Chancellor think that will help people on lower incomes and OAP’ who are still working for a living.
Cloud cuckoo land they are in.

Thanks Campsall

I have a feeling, reading between the lines, that the bit of your post I've highlighted in bold is exactly what has happened and he's refused to apologies. Hence why he's been suspended.

I agree with you if that is the case he should have been dismissed. This half-way house suspension has got the BBC into trouble and made a rod for their own back IMO.

[SydneyRover]

and sugar?

Come on, if the debate is about the content of what was said rather than the right to say it, what about sugar?

[Campsall rover]

Apparently the BBC top brass are really annoyed that a major figure at the BBC is discussing politics online when not at the BBC.

If you're going to give an opinion or start a debate it's always best not to begin with a false premise.

The BBC are apparently annoyed because Gary Lineker made a wholly inappropriate comparison between current UK politicians and those of Nazi Germany.

Lineker often tweets his opinion on political matters including most recently on Sue Gray, the Northern Ireland Protocol etc - there is no evidence that the BBC top brass expressed annoyance with those opinions.

Lineker is a celebrity presenter and not a journalist. He's therefore perfectly free IMO (and under his BBC contract) to express his political opinions just as much as anyone else.

The debate really is about whether the BBC should be accepting of it's celebrity employees making inappropriate public comments. What constitutes inappropriate. And where should the line be drawn.

Any comparison of today's politicians to Nazi Germany is clearly inappropriate. Regardless of Lineker's underlying view which I agree with re being against the Immigration Bill.

His comment is not just inappropriate but historically ignorant and childish. His failure to apologies (on the Nazi Germany comparison not on his opposition to the Bill) is really doing him no favours. I therefore find it impossible to have any sympathy for him.

Has he crossed a line whereby the BBC should dispense with his services? IMO no but if I were his boss I'd be calling him in for a chat and to give a warning on future behaviour. Which, reading between the lines, is exactly what the BBC are doing.

Got it spot on Branton. The voice of reason. Imo you are the only one who gets it.

For Gary Linaker to compare this Uk government with Nazi Germany is totally out of order. There is no comparison, none whatsoever. GL wasn’t even born when the Nazi’s were murdering millions of innocent people due to religion and ethnicity.
Does he seriously think this government are doing what they did. 

You say Branton is the only one who gets it but it doesn't sound like you get it...

At no point did Lineker compare the Tory party to what the Nazis did during WW2 and it's getting exhausting that people are adding 2+2 and getting Banana. He suggested language used by the Tory party was similar to that what was used in Germany in the 30s.

If you look at what has been said within the last couple of years you may agree with the general point.

We've had the Home Secretary call asylum seekers an invasion.

We had her siding with aggressive protestors and blaming the victims.

We've stripped the rights of asylum seekers if they were to come here, when the only way possible to claim asylum in the UK is to get to the UK!

Attacked our rights to peacefully protest.

Etc, etc..

The persecution of the Jews didn't start with the Holocaust, it started with blaming the Jews for the countrys problems.

Ok fair enough. I have to admit I have not seen the tweet from GL.  So just going by what he is supposed to have said.
If it was as you say then that’s quite different.  With it being a private tweet and nothing to do with his work for the BBC then he is entitled to say what he thinks. As said we have the freedom of speech in this country as long as it doesn’t cross a line.
If he said only what you say then that doesn’t cross the line imo.  The way this government is talking is somewhat concerning although they do need to get a grip on these channel crossings. How to differentiate between genuine asylum seekers fleeing persecution and illegal asylum seekers is a massive problem.

[SydneyRover]

And of course if there are different rules for everyone at the bbc there will inevitably a situation where a news journo in a live cross to a sports reporter asking 'how government policy will affect the game/s' and the sports reporter would have to say 'no-comment'

[Branton Red]

And of course if there are different rules for everyone at the bbc there will inevitably a situation where a news journo in a live cross to a sports reporter asking 'how government policy will affect the game/s' and the sports reporter would have to say 'no-comment'

All journalists at the BBC whether they are new readers, political correspondents, arts correspondents or sports correspondents are bound by the same rules disallowing them from giving personal, impartial political opinions publicly.

Gary Lineker is not a journalist. He's a celebrity presenter. Hence why he doesn't give reports in new bulletins.

This is the error Jonathan Agnew made when complaining about Lineker being allowed to give political opinions when he couldn't.

As well as being a cricket commentator Agnew is also (or was) the BBC's cricket correspondent and regularly appears on (mainly radio) BBC news programs reporting on the cricket. He is therefore a BBC sports journalist bound by BBC journalist's very stringent impartiality rules - Lineker is not - though reportedly he does have less stringent impartiality rules he must follow - hence this current issue.

[SydneyRover]

what about sugar?

that's the thing about theory, you can have umpteen supporting text but need only one to disprove it.

Branton, are you debating what was said or the right to be allowed to say it?

[belton rover]

Didn’t Sugar’s Tweets come before Davie took over the BBC?
Perhaps Davie was conscious that standards were slipping when it came to impartiality and needed to firm things up.
If a new manager joins a club and decides to start fining players for being late to training because the previous regime never bothered, despite it being written in the contracts, he’s not going to backdate them, is he?

[SydneyRover]

When a new manger comes in surely he lays the laws down for 'new' standards, no? otherwise he wouldn't be a very good new manager aye?

This does not go to answering the two even three distinct question surrounding this:

The right to speak.

Everyone with the same rights.

What one says.

[SydneyRover]

''When Alan Sugar tweeted an image depicting Jeremy Corbyn as a Nazi (or indeed, when Gary Lineker tweeted "Bin Corbyn" in 2017), that didn't precipitate an internal crisis for BBC over its impartiality. Why?''

https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1633749550719483911

[ncRover]

''When Alan Sugar tweeted an image depicting Jeremy Corbyn as a Nazi (or indeed, when Gary Lineker tweeted "Bin Corbyn" in 2017), that didn't precipitate an internal crisis for BBC over its impartiality. Why?''

https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1633749550719483911

Do you think it should have done?

[SydneyRover]

''When Alan Sugar tweeted an image depicting Jeremy Corbyn as a Nazi (or indeed, when Gary Lineker tweeted "Bin Corbyn" in 2017), that didn't precipitate an internal crisis for BBC over its impartiality. Why?''

https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1633749550719483911

Do you think it should have done?

Was it true, is the question that should be asked, did the comment reflect the situation?

[DonnyOsmond]

Apparently the BBC top brass are really annoyed that a major figure at the BBC is discussing politics online when not at the BBC.

If you're going to give an opinion or start a debate it's always best not to begin with a false premise.

The BBC are apparently annoyed because Gary Lineker made a wholly inappropriate comparison between current UK politicians and those of Nazi Germany.

Lineker often tweets his opinion on political matters including most recently on Sue Gray, the Northern Ireland Protocol etc - there is no evidence that the BBC top brass expressed annoyance with those opinions.

Lineker is a celebrity presenter and not a journalist. He's therefore perfectly free IMO (and under his BBC contract) to express his political opinions just as much as anyone else.

The debate really is about whether the BBC should be accepting of it's celebrity employees making inappropriate public comments. What constitutes inappropriate. And where should the line be drawn.

Any comparison of today's politicians to Nazi Germany is clearly inappropriate. Regardless of Lineker's underlying view which I agree with re being against the Immigration Bill.

His comment is not just inappropriate but historically ignorant and childish. His failure to apologies (on the Nazi Germany comparison not on his opposition to the Bill) is really doing him no favours. I therefore find it impossible to have any sympathy for him.

Has he crossed a line whereby the BBC should dispense with his services? IMO no but if I were his boss I'd be calling him in for a chat and to give a warning on future behaviour. Which, reading between the lines, is exactly what the BBC are doing.

Got it spot on Branton. The voice of reason. Imo you are the only one who gets it.

For Gary Linaker to compare this Uk government with Nazi Germany is totally out of order. There is no comparison, none whatsoever. GL wasn’t even born when the Nazi’s were murdering millions of innocent people due to religion and ethnicity.
Does he seriously think this government are doing what they did. 

You say Branton is the only one who gets it but it doesn't sound like you get it...

At no point did Lineker compare the Tory party to what the Nazis did during WW2 and it's getting exhausting that people are adding 2+2 and getting Banana. He suggested language used by the Tory party was similar to that what was used in Germany in the 30s.

If you look at what has been said within the last couple of years you may agree with the general point.

We've had the Home Secretary call asylum seekers an invasion.

We had her siding with aggressive protestors and blaming the victims.

We've stripped the rights of asylum seekers if they were to come here, when the only way possible to claim asylum in the UK is to get to the UK!

Attacked our rights to peacefully protest.

Etc, etc..

The persecution of the Jews didn't start with the Holocaust, it started with blaming the Jews for the countrys problems.

Ok fair enough. I have to admit I have not seen the tweet from GL.  So just going by what he is supposed to have said.
If it was as you say then that’s quite different.  With it being a private tweet and nothing to do with his work for the BBC then he is entitled to say what he thinks. As said we have the freedom of speech in this country as long as it doesn’t cross a line.
If he said only what you say then that doesn’t cross the line imo.  The way this government is talking is somewhat concerning although they do need to get a grip on these channel crossings. How to differentiate between genuine asylum seekers fleeing persecution and illegal asylum seekers is a massive problem.

Here you go as proof.

[Campsall rover]

Thanks DO for sending that. I don’t go on Twitter other than the DRFC Twitter occasionally.

Yes that’s very different to what people have been saying he said.
Big difference.

Think he has every right to say what he did.
Massive fuss about very little. The biggest worry is if what he said is going to censored because he works for the BBC then where does it end.
We are a democracy with freedom of speech and if that’s taken away we are going down a slippery route.
In no way does that tweet from GL cross the line. Some of the rhetoric coming from Braverman is not what we should be hearing from a British Home Secretary.  100% imo.

[SydneyRover]

And yet 36 tory MPs have written a letter to the bbc demanding an inquiry about it.

By the way CR it was DO who posted the tweet above.