I for one support what the BBC have done. Having read their policy on Impartiality it is clear that Lineker has broken their rules. In particular: 4.3.30 BBC staff and regular BBC presenters or reporters associated with news or public policy-related output may offer professional judgements rooted in evidence. However, it is not normally appropriate for them to present or write personal view content on public policy, matters of political or industrial controversy, or ‘controversial subjects’ in any area.
Here you go... The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
Oh, thanks! I thought it was when someone who refuses to listen to any other viewpoint claims that other people refuse to listen to any other viewpoint
I can say with confidence that if Mr. Lineker had tweeted that he fully agreed with Ms. Braverman's rhetoric, that none of this would have happened. That scenario would be just as much political bias as what he did say. THAT is the difference, you are free to say what you want as long as the Tory Party agrees with you. Why else would Bonko fast track the appointment of a bloke who had previously donated £400k to the post of BBC chairman?
Why was he not suspended/sacked for his comments live on air prior to the Qatar World Cup? He ripped them apart. Surely that is controversy.
He might not have been suspended by the BBC but he would have faced an enormous backlash, particularly on Twitter. Mainly because people want to pick sides rather than engage in sensible discussion.
I can see both arguments to what Lineker said but for me the bigger issue is that the rules don't apply to everyone. Looking at the examples of BBC presenters speaking their minds on a public forum there is a pattern of those who support government being able to say whatever they like without this sort of action. The majority of public have absolutely no trust in the government yet the BBC chairman was essentially put there because of his donations and helping Boris out with a loan. No way is that a coincidence. I'm amazed it has taken this long for something like this to happen. If Lineker had come out supporting the bill, he would have faced a backlash from followers but I'd guess certainly not from the BBC. This is a forum anyway and everyone is entitled to their opinion (without being sacked).
Well, aside from the fact that Lineker isn't associated with "news or public-policy related output" but instead with football, Andrew Neil who is definitely associated with news or public-policy related output is allowed to be the chairman of right-wing magazine The Spectator. Jeremy Clarkson has done loads of work for the BBC while coming out with enough dodgy personal political views. Indeed in the past Lineker has slagged off Corbyn and no-one went on about his bias. It seems bias is only a problem when you disagree with the Tory government.
Not controversy about the Tory Party though. What will be next? Ian Hislop and Paul Merton suspended for derogatory remarks about this Government? Have I Got News For You taken off air?
It's free speech, not freedom from consequences. The right wing have learned to play the same game. But now it's not fair for some reason.
I agree with most of what you say there. The reason I posted about irony in response to that meme is because the poster that posted it goes out of their to ignore, and often tries to belittle, any views that aren't the same as their own. My whole thing is that political debate has become dangerously polarised (ironically, as happened in 1930s Germany and Spain) and that treating other people's views in that way is wrong. I can accept anyone's view if its reasoned and considered but I think we should all be wary of views that are presented with hyperbole and through trying to diminish the reasonable views of others.
Lineker could have said he disagreed with the Tory policies and nobody would have batted an eyelid. He compared them to 1930's Germany, therefore, Nazis. Whatever your beliefs/opinions, it was a stupid comment to make for a person in his position.
Add that to the multiple previous run ins with the BBC about his social media proclamations and the fact that he clearly gets a kick out of this in a teenage lolz way. If he'd done it once I'd be thinking it's a bit harsh, but he's had more issues than Clarkson and Neil put together and this appears to have been the final straw. And so what if they wanted rid of him, frankly. Plenty of other presenters have handed their employees the reason they needed, but that's always been ok in the past because the sides were reversed. The shoe's on the other foot now. If you're daft enough to give your bosses ample cause to do what they want, whose fault is it?
Theresa May was lifting phrases directly from the Nazi Party handbook for her election campaign, was that unacceptable as well?
