I can see that the BBC has to be impartial on the air, but that doesn't extend to tweets away from work. People can't be gagged when they aren't at work. The Home Secretary is free to go on to talk shows to express her dream of refugees being sent to Rwanda so why shouldn't Lineker be able to express his views on Twitter like anybody else?
And Seb Bassong posting photos on Instagram of himself in his Norwich garden brandishing a handgun shouldn't have been fined by the club? As he himself said later: "At that moment I forgot I was 'Sebastien Bassong Premier League player' – being watched. In my head I was 'Sebastien Bassong from Paris'."
Sorry Robbie, but I can't see any relation between the two. Bassong was not making any kind of serious statement.
As Bassong said, he'd forgotten that his responsibilities as a "Premier League player" didn't just apply on the football field, but when he was at home, or anywhere else for that matter. It's not a question of whether Lineker was making "any kind of serious statement". It's a question of whether his responsibilities as a representative of the BBC (or in Bassong's case, of the Premier League and his club) can just be cast aside when not actually "at work".
It's just low hanging fruit gammon rage , the O.P recently complained about not putting politics on the boards too.
Lineker is not "a representative of the BBC" - he is a free lance presenter paid to present MotD. The BBC seems to think it's ok for its top executive to help Boris with a loan just before his appointment, um, by Boris. I'm no Lineker supporter and I don't watch MotD unless City are involved, but this issue is beyond personalities.
I personally don't care what Gary says like Rick I only watch BBC motd if Norwich are on & win so I don't have to endure the sanctimonious bore. Calling people Nazis on Twitter for not wanting more illegal immigration whilst living in a privileged Borough of London with 90% + white very rich English people is just daft though. He shouldn't be sacked for stupidity speech.
No, but he shouldn't have his contract renewed, not because of what he said, but because there are plenty of people who can do what he does for a lot less money and probably better. How much he gets paid of course wouldn't matter if he worked for a commercial organisation. His public platform is partially funded by the licence fee, in my mind he is entitled to say what he wants within the law, just as soon as I don't have to contribute to his ridiculous salary.