"Gary Lineker has issued a defiant statement without an apology over his tweets about the government's illegal immigration policy as it was confirmed he will return to Match of the Day.
Mr Lineker said that the backing he received during the row was "overwhelming" but "however difficult the last few days had been it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away".
Director-General of the BBC, Tim Davie, acknowledged that it had been a "difficult period" caused by "grey areas" in the corporation's social media guidance.
He added: “"What we've agreed - and I've spent time talking to Gary, we've had lots of discussions - is between now and when the review reports, Gary will abide by the editorial guidelines. And that’s where we are."
So, should the vastly overpaid Lineker be allowed to post his own personal views on social media without consequence?
The mighty BBC, seem to be backtracking over their own policy that...
‘Where individuals identify themselves as being linked with the BBC, or are programme makers, editorial staff, reporters or presenters primarily associated with the BBC, their public expressions of opinion have the potential to compromise the BBC’s impartiality and to damage its reputation.’
I very much doubt Lineker would still be employed had he not been supported by other high profile staff presenters and backroom BBC staff. If their programmes had gone ahead as planned, Lineker would be out on his ear, and his tweets would be meaningless.
Opinions are divided, but in this case, Free Speech (and Lineker) won the battle.
In case anyone who is interested didn't see his original tweet that has caused all the controversy, he was commenting on a video of Suella Braverman unveiling the government's plans to stop migrants crossing the Channel on small boats and saying the UK is being "overwhelmed".
He wrote.... "There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the '30s."
A prominent Jewish rabbi has criticised the BBC football pundit for comparing the Government’s policy on illegal migration to the Nazis, saying the comments were misplaced. Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain told GB News: “I think the language that he used was misplaced and I think I am speaking not for just the Jewish community, but anyone who has been a veteran or a parent who was a veteran in that the Nazis were involved with mass genocide. Now, you may just disagree with current government's policy, but it isn't mass genocide and what he has done is two mistakes. Firstly he missed the target there and people will say this is the wrong analogy and dismiss his argument. , and secondly I think it also misdemeans the horror of the Nazis."
-- Edited by Syl on Monday 13th of March 2023 12:45:41 PM
He didn't allude to genocide he clearly stated this was similar in language to 1930's Germany.
We know where that language led and he is fully entitled to warn of that language being used again.
Are people only allowed to be BBC 24 hrs a day?
Most thinking people didn't join up any dots that led to this is what the BBC thing is it!
Apart from the cretins at the BBC of course.
Lineker is popular with the people he works with, maybe more than he is with the public. The fact that his workmates came out in support of him, leaving them in the lurch, have forced the BBC to either lose business or lose face. They chose the latter, have backtracked, apologised, and are rethinking their contract guidlines.
Whether you agree with Lineker or not, he has a right to offer his opinion away from the BBC.
Illegal migration bill is ‘cruelty without purpose’, says Archbishop of York
Jewish leaders join Stephen Cottrell in urging government not to penalise ‘world’s most vulnerable’ as charities and businesses voice horror in open letter
He didn't allude to genocide he clearly stated this was similar in language to 1930's Germany.
We know where that language led and he is fully entitled to warn of that language being used again.
Are people only allowed to be BBC 24 hrs a day?
Most thinking people didn't join up any dots that led to this is what the BBC thing is it!
Apart from the cretins at the BBC of course.
Lineker is popular with the people he works with, maybe more than he is with the public. The fact that his workmates came out in support of him, leaving them in the lurch, have forced the BBC to either lose business or lose face. They chose the latter, have backtracked, apologised, and are rethinking their contract guidlines.
Whether you agree with Lineker or not, he has a right to offer his opinion away from the BBC.
I suspect the 'solidarity' was motivated for selfish rather than noble reasons. There for the Grace of God etc. Let's all throw up our hands in horror coz it might be one of us next. What I can't stand about these wealthy champagne socialists is their hypocrisy. Where were any of them during the Qatar debacle? Spouting off about the appalling human rights out there then getting on the plane anyway to go there.
Between 2009 and 2013, he was paid £400,000 a year by Al Jazeera, which is owned by Qatar, to front Champions League coverage for the channel. He knew what their human rights history was and is. But it took him four years before he suddenly pearl clutched and refused to continue.
Where's all the speaking out when a child dies of mould poisoning in a hovel council flat in Brixton? A hovel that should be demolished but there's not enough housing so tough shit. We can't keep an open door to an infinite influx of illegal immigrants.
54.2% of people (36 million) now live in households which receive more in benefits than they contributed in taxes. If this carries on there'll be no NHS, no pensions or benefits left to give. We'll become a third world country.
Then the dire warnings that we need migrants to work in jobs to keep the country afloat. Why aren't we making our own people work?
And does anyone think for one wild moment that all these illegals are going to want to work their guts out in low paid jobs?
It makes me laugh that people are applauding him for his humanitarian views, if he was so outraged by the plight of the underdog, he wouldn't have lined his bulging pockets with money paid from the people who exploit the most vulnerable.
Hypocrites....him and his 'mates'.....including the bigwigs at the BBC, who make the rules as it suits them, only to capitulate at the first sign of trouble.
It seems the Lineker BBC drama is settled...as predicted Lineker 1 ... BBC 0.
It does open a wider debate re free speech. Oviously it doesn't exist, but the boundaries have been extended, at least for BBC staff....as long as they don't actually work in their news/current affairs departments.
