Gary Lineker

[dylanisabaddog 4,908]

Apologies if this is already being discussed on one of the other political threads. 

What does everyone think? I have seen several people argue that he is freelance and not employed by the BBC. Although I support Lineker I see that as a red herring, in fact there is a good argument to say the BBC should be treating him as an employee. 

The one opinion I haven't heard stated is that there are many people who actively dislike football. They also dislike footballers and don't like the intelligent ones who have an opinion on matters outside football. But I doubt they'd dislike Lineker quite so much if he shared their views on life. I mention this because there was similar outrage when Marcus Rashford made Johnson look stupid. 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,700]

Beat you by 60 seconds.

[dylanisabaddog 4,908]

I think you meant to say 'its favourite mouthpiece'. Which he isn't. 

Do you think he's in trouble or is it the BBC that has a problem? 

Do you have an opinion on the subject? 

Edited March 9, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Unless I'm mistaken , we live in a country where free speech is still holding on as an integral right. It is under threat of course.

The simple question is, would there be a fuss if he had tweeted that he agreed with the Bill? If the answer is of course not, then he has done nothing wrong. 

I don't know him. I do object to his earnings on the BBC and find it strange that he, along with Zoe Ball, are, according to their contracts, the most important people at the BBC. But apart from that, he is just a citizen entitled to express his view. Twitter is not the BBC.

Edited March 9, 2023 by keelansgrandad

[Badger 2,405]

1. The "policy" described as illegal by UN bodies and others. The govt is unable to explain its own policy (what would they do with the refugees; where would they be kept; where would they be sent; how much would it cost - costs about 1/2 a million to keep someone in prison) + ridiculously exaggerates the number of potential refugees. Yet a football broadcaster questions the policy makes the top news - why?

2. Andrew Neill (for example) was a political broadcaster for the BBC for many years whilst continuing to write partisan articles for the Spectator - why no fuss with this if there is with Lineker?

 

[dylanisabaddog 4,908]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Unless I'm mistaken , we live in a country where free speech is still holding on as an integral right. It is under threat of course.

The simple question is, would there be a fuss if he had tweeted that he agreed with the Bill?

I don't think he'd have a problem with the Government. I'd like to think those who oppose the Government would allow him freedom of speech but I'm not entirely sure of that. 

The BBC never had a problem with John Humphrys writing a column in the Telegraph and said nothing about Alexander Armstrong publicly supporting fox hunting. But they do have a problem with a footballer who has the audacity to criticise them. They had a similar problem with Rashford. Perhaps it's just a coincidence or is it something to do with the fact that they didn't play football at the school they attended? 

[king canary 7,599]

Just now, Badger said:

2. Andrew Neill (for example) was a political broadcaster for the BBC for many years whilst continuing to write partisan articles for the Spectator - why no fuss with this if there is with Lineker?

This is the key point for me.

These issues only flair up when it is an example of supposed lefty bias.

It also raises the question why Lineakar disagreeing with the Government is beyond the pale for the BBC but the chair of the whole corporation helping Boris Johnson secure a massive loan is not. 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,700]

18 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Unless I'm mistaken , we live in a country where free speech is still holding on as an integral right. It is under threat of course.

The simple question is, would there be a fuss if he had tweeted that he agreed with the Bill? If the answer is of course not, then he has done nothing wrong. 

I don't know him. I do object to his earnings on the BBC and find it strange that he, along with Zoe Ball, are, according to their contracts, the most important people at the BBC. But apart from that, he is just a citizen entitled to express his view. Twitter is not the BBC.

There is no reference towards 'free speech' in the laws of this country and people have been arrested for posting 'offensive' tweets.

There is no free speech in this county.

[Badger 2,405]

Just now, king canary said:

This is the key point for me.

These issues only flair up when it is an example of supposed lefty bias.

It also raises the question why Lineakar disagreeing with the Government is beyond the pale for the BBC but the chair of the whole corporation helping Boris Johnson secure a massive loan is not. 

I think that it is relevant to a discussion on another thread, but the govt is showing increasingly authoritarian tendencies and is more and more intolerant of opposition and protest- e.g. the policing bill + recent attempts to privatise Channel 4.

[Mr Angry 1,554]

He may have something in his contract with the BBC that prevents him from making comments that could be perceived as being political but if not, they should let him say what he wants.

[Pyro Pete 1,891]

The impartiality of the BBC is important.

I look forward to Gary Lineker reporting back from his 'talking to' from BBC Chairman Richard Sharp.

This would be the same Richard Sharp who helped arrange a loan of £800,000 for Boris Johnson, before the then-PM backed him to lead the BBC.

Impartiality, indeed.

 'BBC chairman Richard Sharp made "significant errors of judgement" by facilitating an £800,000 loan guarantee for Boris Johnson, a cross-party committee of MPs has found.'

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-bbc-chair-richard-sharp-made-significant-errors-of-judgement-over-800-000-loan-12808390

[king canary 7,599]

3 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

He may have something in his contract with the BBC that prevents him from making comments that could be perceived as being political but if not, they should let him say what he wants.

Technically he's freelance I think.

However I don't think it really matters unless you're involved in news. So it would be inapproriate for Fiona Bruce or Huw Edwards to be staking out their political positions as it could be seen to affect their professional output (although why Andrew Neill skated by I do not know). But the presenter of Match of the Day? I can't see why he needs to be politically impartial, just as I don't think it would matter if the presenter of Bargain Hunt or Pointless was a big fan of the small boats policy. 

[Pyro Pete 1,891]

 

[Herman 9,752]

Solidarity with Gary. He is correct and ignore him at your peril. 

[benchwarmer 624]

Wait a minute.  Is the BBC impartial about the war in Ukraine?  I think not, and nor should it be.

But nothing is said because it happens to be a view with which the government of the day agrees.

If Lineker had expressed support for Stop the Boats, this wouldn't be happening.

Edited March 9, 2023 by benchwarmer

[littleyellowbirdie 2,538]

I find Gary Lineker frustrating. He's clearly very politically engaged and a smart guy, but he's a BBC presenter who is putting the BBC in a difficult spot.

He has plenty of options. If he wanted to go into frontline politics any party would fall at their feet to have him. If he wanted to start being a serious political commentator, many papers would fall over themselves to offer him a column. He could easily get a contract with Sky or BT Sports as a sports presenter at the same time with no problems. Instead, he just throws in the odd political tweet to satisfy himself while causing his employer massive damage in the process.

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

24 minutes ago, king canary said:

Technically he's freelance I think.

However I don't think it really matters unless you're involved in news. So it would be inapproriate for Fiona Bruce or Huw Edwards to be staking out their political positions as it could be seen to affect their professional output (although why Andrew Neill skated by I do not know). But the presenter of Match of the Day? I can't see why he needs to be politically impartial, just as I don't think it would matter if the presenter of Bargain Hunt or Pointless was a big fan of the small boats policy. 

Think that is the key point, and it is absolutely hilarious at one level (rather sinister at another) if you step back a little and ask why all these brain dead gammons are getting into such a lather about a football pundit expressing a personal opinion on an issue of the day via Twitter or wherever it was. It seems a pretty clear attempt to suppress any or all free speech which highlights what a bunch of scumbags the current Government are, and it is becoming a regular occurence.

Of course if they were attacking Gary for some of his scandalous comments about VAR decisions on Match of the Day then they might be taken a little more seriously......😂😂

[Pyro Pete 1,891]

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,538]

4 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

Wait a minute.  Is the BBC impartial about the war in Ukraine?  I think not, and nor should it be.

But nothing is said because it happens to be a view with which the government of the day agrees.

Can you give examples of how the reporting by the BBC has been partial in favour of Ukraine? The reporting by the BBC is usually very careful to report what claims by both sides can and can't be verified, while reports of atrocities necessarily favour the Ukranian side of the story on account of the sheer massive volume of Russian atrocities against Ukraine committed on a daily basis.

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

There really is no issue here. If he said this whilst presenting Match of the Day it would be a problem, he didn't, he said it on his personal twitter page.

It's absolutely nothing to do with the BBC's perceived impartiality. Just the Daily Heil and the Tories trying to cause trouble. It will fail.

[Well b back 3,199]

14 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

There really is no issue here. If he said this whilst presenting Match of the Day it would be a problem, he didn't, he said it on his personal twitter page.

It's absolutely nothing to do with the BBC's perceived impartiality. Just the Daily Heil and the Tories trying to cause trouble. It will fail.

Indeed nothing was said when attacks were suggested on lifeboatmen, and lifeboatmen were abused when supporters were whipped up by Farage.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,538]

54 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

There really is no issue here. If he said this whilst presenting Match of the Day it would be a problem, he didn't, he said it on his personal twitter page.

It's absolutely nothing to do with the BBC's perceived impartiality. Just the Daily Heil and the Tories trying to cause trouble. It will fail.

There really is an issue here. Funnily enough, a Guardian column by the Editor of BBC Feedback explains very clearly what the issue is and why Lineker is hurting the BBC by sticking to his guns.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/09/gary-lineker-ministers-refugees-bbc-tweet-chair

Edited March 9, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

There really is an issue here. Funnily enough, a Guardian column explains very clearly what the issue is and why Lineker is hurting the BBC by sticking to his guns.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/09/gary-lineker-ministers-refugees-bbc-tweet-chair

Very stupid. It's an opinion piece.

No surprise you're on the stupid side of the debate.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,538]

38 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Indeed nothing was said when attacks were suggested on lifeboatmen, and lifeboatmen were abused when supporters were whipped up by Farage.

How is commentary on incitement to illegal acts comparable to commentary on government policy?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,538]

6 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Very stupid. It's an opinion piece.

No surprise you're on the stupid side of the debate.

 

Stop calling me stupid, you vapid waste of space.

[TheGunnShow 5,937]

They can dress it up all they like, but the Government is worried about "impartiality" as they realise others will use their own social media platforms to highlight what they consider to be egregiously poor moves by this Cabinet. I think this is been seen as an opportunity to put more pressure on the BBC to privatise and therefore not hold the Government to account so much (although personally, I don't think they're particularly cutting anyway - the BBC is not left-wing at all, more pro-government in power at the time). Moreover, this is his Twitter, not when he's actually on Match of the Day.

As KG said, if he'd agreed with Braverman, this would never have flown up so rapidly.

[king canary 7,599]

41 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

There really is an issue here. Funnily enough, a Guardian column by the Editor of BBC Feedback explains very clearly what the issue is and why Lineker is hurting the BBC by sticking to his guns.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/09/gary-lineker-ministers-refugees-bbc-tweet-chair

I feel like we read different articles.

This one basically seemed to boil down to 'he should delete the tweet because it might **** off the Tories who control the BBC's future.'

I just don't buy the argument that public trust in the BBC is undermined by a football presenter espousing anti Tory views. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,538]

5 minutes ago, king canary said:

I feel like we read different articles.

This one basically seemed to boil down to 'he should delete the tweet because it might **** off the Tories who control the BBC's future.'

I just don't buy the argument that public trust in the BBC is undermined by a football presenter espousing anti Tory views. 

IIt boils down to it f**ks off a lot of BBC viewers and undermines its credibility regarding a highly divisive political subject and damages the perception of impartiality, regardless of the fact that he's not in news broadcasting.

Let's face it, we saw at the European cup that a large section of football fans aren't in the progressive camp; if a guy on Match of the Day is telling them the policy they support is bad and the government are Nazis, they're more likely to be p1ss3d off at him for saying it and taking it as proof that the BBC is full of lefties.

Edited March 9, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[king canary 7,599]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

IIt boils down to it f**ks off a lot of BBC viewers and undermines its credibility regarding a highly divisive political subject and damages the perception of impartiality, regardless of the fact that he's not in news broadcasting.

Let's face it, we saw at the world cup that a large section of football fans aren't in the progressive camp; if a guy on Match of the Day is telling them the policy they support is bad and the government are Nazis, they're more likely to be p1ss3d off at him for saying it and taking it as proof that the BBC is full of lefties.

So to break it down he can't have an opinion because lots of people are idiots?

I'd agree if he was using Match of the Day to broadcast these views but he isn't- he's tweeting on his personal twitter account. 

If people really can't stand him then they can stop watching MOTD and maybe the BBC will move on from him. 

It does seem like the BBC have seen sense though and won't be disciplining him. 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,158]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

IIt boils down to it f**ks off a lot of BBC viewers and undermines its credibility regarding a highly divisive political subject and damages the perception of impartiality, regardless of the fact that he's not in news broadcasting.

Let's face it, we saw at the European cup that a large section of football fans aren't in the progressive camp; if a guy on Match of the Day is telling them the policy they support is bad and the government are Nazis, they're more likely to be p1ss3d off at him for saying it and taking it as proof that the BBC is full of lefties.

So Gary Lineker can't express his personal opinion on Twitter  just in case it upsets a load of swivel eyed right wing idiots.

Er...... okay............