I am guessing this kind of discussion really has no winners or losers. On one hand you people who have an axe to grind against the BBC with all the hypocrisy that surrounds it.....on the other hand you have those who, for whatever reason, don't like Lineker. Then of course there is the political angle. If you're a right wing Tory and will not have anyone saying ANYTHING against whatever policy they come up with....then Lineker will be firmly in your crosshairs. From my point of view, I don't give a shiny s hite about the BBC, Lineker and definitely not the Conservative Party...what I care about if the freedom to say what you want..to attempt to stifle the freedom of speech is the thin edge of a very dangerous wedge. Ask those poor bastards in Russia.
Gary Lineker has never been arrested or charged. He has never had his social media accounts suspended. Actually, he is free to write the exact same thing again for all to see. He has gone against his contractual obligations with the BBC. No freedom of speech needs defended. He's never lost it. Like some of us, he just needs to be careful not to bring his company into disrepute or he can be disciplined for it.
Which contractual obligation has he breached? From what I've seen he may have gone against the organisation's social media guidance, but even then the guidance in question specifically mentions reduced risk of damage to impartiality when a sports presenter comments on political policy. Whole load of fuss about nothing and a massive own goal by the right wing media. Anyone remember Sue Gray?
He hasn't, you're quite right. If anyone believes he was speaking on behalf of the BBC or claiming to represent their views then they're idiots. He wasn't even on the BBC so wasn't actually working for them when he posted. So he wasn't being employed by them at that time unless his contract stipulates he's at work 24/7. Nor was he working for Walkers Crisps or anyone else. it was a comment on social media which is exactly the same as him saying the same thing down the pub ... just chatting. If the BBC seriously believes it has the right to control what people think and chat about they need to relocate to the Kremlin.
But ask the foot stamping, met left, St John's Wood chattering classes what they were doing. Ask the police, from whom she had a visit , but not a supportive one. Ask the Scottish Parliament where she was insulted openly and behind privilege. Ask Lineker himself , though I don't know what if anything, he had to say about the hounding of her and others on the matter. The same has happened to numerous people, writers, university professors, journalists who don't tow certain lines. They have been attacked , and worse, for holding a reasonable opinion. Free speech is an aspiration. It always was, but as so much contact is now made through twitter and Facebook who openly use algorithms to decide what is and what is not acceptable, it is no longer as free as it was.
The BBC don't even expect Lineker to be impartial ... ... they just want him to pretend to be impartial. FFS man, just how far into his personal life does this weird corporation believe it can go. Was he allowed, by the BBC, to talk to other Leicester supporters at the match yesterday. What happens if one records a Lineker comment about Boris Johnson being a convicted fraud and liar then posts it on Twitter. It's true that Johnson was fined having lied about his parties so surely that's not a question of impartiality. Whether it's the most fanatical Tory or anti-Tory speaking the facts remain the same. The BBC aren't actually asking for impartiality ... ... they're asking Lineker not to express any political views whatsoever. The word 'impartiality' is just being used as a convenient cover-all. Who's this you're talking about mate.
Agree with this. Free speech is an aspiration as the extent of the freedom comes down to who shouts and claims offense the most. At the end of the day if i or anyone want to describe something as wrong or a person a ****er then that is my or there right. If someone else wants to get offended by that then they either need to learn to ignore it or build a bridge and get over it.
For me the bottom line is... The tories in parliament fcuked up by using Lineker as a weapon to beat the BBC. They are now running away from it, as it looks bad, it also has highlighted what he said has some truth behind it..pip pip The tories at the top of the BBC fcuked up by giving in to the daily heil and boggle eyed loons MPs. Having suspended Lineker they have backed themselves into a corner. Ps why cannot those fully employed by the BBC never mind freelancers say what they want?
The BBCs impartiality rules were tightened to specifically include reference to high profile individuals needing to be careful about what they say regardless of whether it was outside their speciality or not. It was in response to a high profile presenter getting into hot water in 2016 and 2018 with tweets. Guess who that presenter was.
Several political commentators have noted the detrimental effect Twitter has had on political debate. It has helped to diminish it to a state of slogans, expressed through hashtags (e.g. #****thetories, #neverLabour, #istandwithgary), and a kind of mob mentality. It is very much a case of us vs them, good vs bad, friend vs enemy to the extent that if you support Gary Linker you are good, if you support J. K. Rowling you are bad. There is no space for nuance or for reasoned debate. What a truly terrible state of affairs. This is a situation that has been created by people on both sides of the political debate (and I mean left/right rather than Labour/Conservative although members of those parties do have to accept culpability) and neither are willing to acknowledge or accept what they have done. I genuinely fear that the situation is not that far from Weimar Germany or 1920s Spain. The one minor chink of light in all this is that Keir Starmer appears to be attempting to shift Labour back towards the middle ground.
That is an infringement of liberties, only brought in to assuage the swivel eyed loons of the far right of the tories. Lineker should test it on the European court of human rights...
Great post. Rowling in particular is a great example of this. Agrees with one side on 99% of issues - she was a heroine of the 'woke' (I hate that word) left - but that 1% deviation makes her Satan in the eyes of that very same side and they're willing to threaten her with all sorts of horrible things to try to shut her up. Thankfully, and we're seeing this more and more often, the people they're trying to silence have got '**** you' money which insulates them.
No it isn't. He can say whatever he likes. Just as the BBC can look at his words and decide whether they're bringing the corporation into disrepute Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.
I don't support Lineker and don't care what his views are on football, let alone the immigration issue or the price of eggs ... ... but I don't believe a major information outlet should seek to pursue people into their private lives and silence them on any subject. Neither do his fellow presenters by the look of things.
I expect we'll see them tightened again very soon. The BBC gave him plenty of leeway in the past but he's pushed it and pushed it, and there's got to be a limit. What tends to happen with these people is they get more and more extreme in their views. The 'hit' needs to get bigger and bigger.
