Let's be honest. Is support for Lineker based on the principle of free speech, or for the content of what he wrote? If Lineker had instead tweeted in favour of the government's policy, or something more... shall we say... right wing, would there be so much support for him? Or would people on here be saying something like 'shut up and stick to MOTD, you are supposed to be impartial?' And I would ask that you address the spirit of this question rather than wriggle out of it by saying things like,'well the BBC would never have suspended him if he made comments in support of the government' because you don't know that.
There is plenty of evidence to show that YES if Lineker's comment had been pro government no fuss would have been made. Kueunsberg, Andrew Neal, Robinson, Sugar and on and on. And they are not responsible for just one comment but many. The crooked head of the BBC even refused to answer that question when it was put to him.
Somebody asked Time Davie that exact question The backpeddling when he was trying not to answer that question said far more than if he actually answered it
Without direct polling of people, you cannot say either way. The beauty of all this is that free market economics provides the solution to the problem. If 10000 BBC tax payers (G1) are definitely going to stop paying because Lineker is working for the BBC, and 1.5m BBC tax payers (G2) support his freedom of speech, then all G2 have to do is accept an increase of £1 on their tax bill. The BBC can then say : 1. they support his freedom of speech 2. his antics do not represent the BBC in any form 3. G1 are not paying to have him working with the BBC, G2 are.
Can they both **** off? Baddiel's boasting elsewhere of his book currently selling more copies then The God Delusion. That's a book the just came out vs one from 2006 that had sold 3m+ copies by 2014.
Is he saying that his book, from the day it was publicly released, sells more copies per day than the "God delusion" ?? If so ...
I thought vimhawk's question was specifically about NOT the BBC/ Government line but about people like us on here. He wrote : Is support for Lineker based on the principle of free speech, or for the content of what he wrote? I happen to think that many on here and elsewhere would not be supporting him if his comments had been pro government policy. For me - I don't like his comment as it brought in Nazi overtones -but I support his right to make the comment as he is not a political reporter
Of course, he failed to stop the obvious self-own in the screengrab The God Delusion: 9,946 Baddiel ****e: 0
Richard Madeley took a similar stance to yours on Question Time. He disagreed with what Lineker said, but felt that he had every right to say it. His comparison with 1930s Germany wasn't the politics though, it was the rhetoric. Braverman's trying to scapegoat immigrants and create fear about an invasion. This isn't about solving a problem, it's about demonising a group of people. To get back to your point though, I think it's a mixture. Some people support Lineker's stance, some are in favour of free speech and others object to government overreach. I'd put myself in all three categories.
She's still on Question Time, though. For anyone that missed it: This was part of a question about Boris nominating his own father for a knighthood. She was prepared for this to be brought up and had a script. It wasn't a one-off, according to the victim of this abuse. He did it all the time.
I would too -in qualified ways I support Lineker's point but not the language he used to make it I am in favour of free speech - but it comes with some restrictions and responsibilites including other's rights of response I object to the government's complete absence of a coherent policy on immigration (and most other things) and their hypocrisy
Hi S61, I think you're right in your interpretation of the question... As regards reaction on here, I think it would have been one of mild disappointment in him rather than commenting on his 'right' to voice an opinion. But the simple fact is that had he made comments supporting the language used, then there would not have been any outcry from Government or their MP's and so the question of BBC action would not have surfaced. See lack of response to likes of Sugar, Portillo and indeed Tory MP's who have voices on the BBC.
