BBC suspends presenter for calling out government

Post Reply New Topic

This is even worse than the David Attenborough situation I posted yesterday.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... he-day-bbc

Gary Lineker, a well known and beloved footballer/presenter, tweeted about the UK government's immigration policy:

"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, and I'm out of order?"

He was then suspended by the BBC from the major weekly football show Match of the Day for tweeting this *on his personal account.*

Despite the fact that the BBC showcase many right wing people with right wing views on shows like Question Time, their Sunday morning shows- The Andrew Marr Show etc. Despite the fact another presenter dismissed domestic violence with 'he only broke his wife's nose once, it was a one off' and wasn't suspended.

So the free speech advocates have now been exposed. They believe in free speech- unless it's a view they don't agree with, then the person must be 'cancelled'

Now it is a bin fire. No other presenters, commentators or pundits will take part in Match of the Day in solidarity. Even right wingers are supporting Gary.

If people are being silenced for questioning the government, that is no longer democracy.

I am looking forward to seeing what happens with this situation. It would be ironic if footballers bring down our government

More likely to bring down the BBC. I'm seeing tonnes of people on the left now joining those on the right in calling for the licence fee to be scrapped or for people to cancel their direct debits. It's reaching the stage now where the BBC, having tried to please everybody, is now pleasing almost nobody. It's chief selling point of being advert free means little today when most people have convenient recording devices and are able to skip through ad breaks easily and it now offers nothing that other channels can't do at least as well, if not better.

As for Lineker (who very much divides opinion, because his own opinions are so obviously partisan) I'm totally against cancel culture and all for free speech, he's entitled to his views. However, he signed a contract worth a million pounds plus or whatever the figure (paid out of a licence fee for which people are intimidated, bullied and threatened with prison if they refuse to pay it) with Lineker agreeing to be impartial on and off screen. That's not implied, it's very specific, he's breaking the terms of his contract in comparing the government to the National Socialist German Workers' Party on a public platform.

Notice how quiet Labour are being on this. IMO this will polarise public opinion towards either them or Farage and Reform. I expect both Reform and Labour to gain in the polls at the expense of the Tories as people either see the policy as inhumane or think the government will backtrack on it and aren't willing to stand up for it.

This is good news for Starmer.

However, the BBC specifically told Lineker to talk about Qatar's bad human rights record before the recent world cup, so apparently they're fine with that. But not with him talking about the UK's bad human rights record. So double standards I believe.

He runs his own Twitter account so he is allowed to say what he likes on it. As are people like Alan Sugar, Andrew Neil etc.

However, Sugar, Neil etc. tweet in support of the government i.e. not impartial either. So they are left alone.

That is not democracy.

Last edited by KitLily on 11 Mar 2023, 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think this is what Starmer has been doing lately: keeping quiet and giving the government enough rope to hang themselves with.

I also found this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46566574

So what are BBC presenters not allowed to say?
As a publicly-funded broadcaster the BBC has its own guidelines, including rules on impartiality, which it says lie "at the heart of public service".

The guidelines state that BBC staff and freelancers who work for BBC News and Current Affairs must not:

State or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party
Express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
Advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other 'controversial subject'
Exhort a change in high-profile public policy

So these rules don't apply to Lineker?
In a word, no, because he is a sport presenter.

Following this latest row, a BBC spokesperson said: "Gary is not involved in any news or political output for the BBC and as such, any expression of his personal political views does not affect the BBC's impartiality."

A former ITV presenter of a daytime magazine show has said she had to sign to an agreement of being impartial politically on every TV job she took, which would include continuity announcer, so for the BBC not to have that written in would be quite extraordinary seeing that they are publicly rather than privately funded.
They are now saying however "it's a grey area", so you're probably right.
It's insanity that the views of a not-very-bright ex-footballer, that won't change anybody mind out in public, has been the headline story for 3 days now.

I'm not probably right, I am right. That link I posted and quoted from above is the BBC's own statement. Here it is again: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46566574

It doesn't matter how bright Lineker is or not. He is concerned about the safety and welfare of other human beings, that is more important. If we stop caring about each other, we're finished.

I don't agree with this at all, it matters a lot. Otherwise a complex issue is reduced to the virtue signalling "be kind" child like drivel that glosses over very serious problems that impact on the less well off whilst the rich - including Lineker - will of course not be affected. Typical of the left to jump to the defence of a millionaire effectively supporting crime gangs and slave labour.

Look up the origional statement that the BBC gave which they HAVE to keep to to this day to be allowed to charge a licence fee.

The main point is that Lineker was suspended for having his own views which didn't agree with the government i.e. labelled as left wing. Whereas other presenters are not suspended for having their own views which do agree with the government i.e. labelled as right wing. The BBC can either suspend all presenters with non impartial views or not suspend any of them. They can't have it both ways.

I won't be distracted by tangents about the level of intelligence people have.

A link, please?

Fair enough kitlily, that's a reasonable point.

He should be suspended. The BBC are publically funded on the condition of neutrality. Not only has he broken that rule, but he also compared them to the Nazis which is frankly absurd.

Let's remember, the government is proposing making illegal entry to the country as grounds for permanent refusal of UK citizenship. This isn't unreasonable considering the considerable time and effort required to cover so many miles through multiple safe EU countries, yet alone the risk of coming over in a cheap boat of questionable seaworthiness.

Economic migrants do this. Genuine migrants fleeing war don't.

A lot of the migrants have been Albanian men who are leaving a country with stability and safety.

The UK has a relatively good human rights record. Qatar's human rights record might well be breaching international law anyway so the BBC doesn't need to be impartial on it.

Andrew Marr who hosted the Politics Show for the BBC for many years, found that the BBC policy was too restrictive. He wanted to speak out about slow responses to global warming, and be allowed to air his views about political and social issues. In the end he was so frustrated that he left the BBC and now works for LBC, where he is much happier. The BBC was the voice of the British Empire and is now a post imperial broadcasting service, but it broadly does not like to upset the power elites. It feels compelled to broadcast the coronation of Charles 3rd in May. There are more important events going on in England, Wales, Scotland and in Northern Island, and in the world generally. The concern over the English Governments new migration policy is that it may not be in compliance with the 1951 Refugee Convention, which Winston Churchill signed. So it can be criticised. More international European police work needs financing to avoid people trafficking, but in an unjust world with great differences of freedom and economics, people may feel compelled to try to move to somewhere they hope shall be better. I had economic migrants in part of my family. In the 1880s my maternal great grandfather moved from Wales to get work at Laurence Scott Electromotor Company in Norwich. ( they made electric motors for the Titanic and trade under the name A. G. Scott, making naval electric motors even now) Wales in the 1880s had no housing benefit, and no unemployment benefit, so Jonathan had to move to another nation, England, to find work and money. I get tired of the English Government using the words economic migrant as a term of abuse and vilification. Many Scots and Irish people went to the U. S.A. and Canada as economic migrants.