Any thoughts on Gary Lineker’s tweets?

[dosxuk]

He represents the BBC and people will automatically associate him with the BBC because of his long term and high profile role he has within the corporation, so he should take some responsibility.

What difference to your perception of the BBC does his tweet make? What concerns does his tweet raise about the BBC's coverage?

I could agree, if he tweeted that he hates Man United and doesn't want to see them featured on any of his programmes, but he didn't - he commented on a political matter, something that will never come up in any of his work with the BBC. He's not a face of BBC management, BBC news, or the BBC's political coverage - he's the face of their primetime football coverage and sports awards.

 

[Philip]

Responsibility for what? Upsetting the right?

No, take responsibility to help preserve an impartial image for the people he works for.

People automatically assume sympathy for the BBC here means sympathy for the Tories, but that's nonsense. It is sympathy for the difficult position that Lineker has put the BBC in, no more than that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2023 ==

What difference to your perception of the BBC does his tweet make? What concerns does his tweet raise about the BBC's coverage?

I could agree, if he tweeted that he hates Man United and doesn't want to see them featured on any of his programmes, but he didn't - he commented on a political matter, something that will never come up in any of his work with the BBC. He's not a face of BBC management, BBC news, or the BBC's political coverage - he's the face of their primetime football coverage and sports awards.

For a start he is more than just a football presenter, he has a number of other leading roles within the BBC such as presenting SPOTY, he is one of their highest paid employees. I look at Lineker and I see 'a BBC man' and one of the most influential figures within the corporation, so comments criticising the government in such a way he has done also creates a political vibe about the BBC which isn't neutral.

 

[SuspectUsual]

No, take responsibility to help preserve an impartial image for the people he works for.

People automatically assume sympathy for the BBC here means sympathy for the Tories, but that's nonsense. It is sympathy for the difficult position that Lineker has put the BBC in, no more than that.

It really isn’t putting the BBC in a difficult position. If they’d not reacted it would all be forgotten by now.

The stuff that should put the BBC in a difficult position is the main character in a high profile show (Sugar) called Jeremy Corbyn “a communist” and urging people to vote Tory, or the host of a political programme pointing out the Stanley Johnson “only broke his wife’s nose once”

 

[nr758123]

is it not simply “cancel culture”

Cancel culture? Isn't that something to do with Transpennine Express?

And to continue with the Transpennine Express references, much of BBC Radio Five Live's sports coverage today has been cancelled "due to a short notice change to the timetable".

 

[Yew]

No need for a source, it's common sense that he should abide by his employer's guidelines.

As discussed previously, the BBC's guidelines on impartiality only apply to the editorial content of the BBC. And has there been any indication that he has been partial in his discussions on match of the day?

 

[Philip]

So you're happy with the hypocrisy of the BBC then? It's own Chairman arranged a loan for the (now former) Prime Minister - how is that impartial?

It is censorship. The sort of thing Vladimir Putin does.

Once again, two wrongs don't make a right, just because mistakes have been made in the past doesn't mean the BBC should continue to turn a blind eye. And no it isn't censorship, it is about taking responsibility and the BBC taking steps to try to maintain an impartial image.

 

[adrock1976]

Regarding all the fuss about impartiality with the Beeb, how about the blatant breach of rules on advertising on MotD?

An example that comes to mind is that the actual name of Arsenal's home stadium is Ashburton Grove, but is referred to on the show and sports reports as the Emirates. This is blatantly advertising a product.

West Ham's former home was referred to both as the Boleyn Ground and Upton Park, but neither were advertising a product at all.

 

[DarloRich]

There will be no football focus or final score this afternoon.

It looks the bbc have lost the dressing room. Get Allerdyce in until the end of the season

 

[Philip]

I'll turn it around, to those defending Lineker, would you be as defensive towards him and his position if he had been pulled on the grounds of breaking impartiality by tweeting something like "brilliant decision by the Tories, people need to get behind the government rather than continuously being on their backs"?

 

[Fleetmaster]

But you have a major issue with a footballer posting his personal political thoughts on social media, even though he doesn't go anywhere near the BBC's political programming, because young people might be corrupted by his opinions, even though he will leave them at the door when he's presenting a programme (unless you're also suggesting he was likely to have gone on a rant about immigration policy while discussing West Ham vs Burnley tonight??)?

It helps if you stick to fairly representating Lineker's status, namely...

1. Due to his high profile and wide reach, Lineker freely signed a more restrictive non-news personalities BBC contract that states his personal social media use is subject to BBC policy. It is casually known as "the Lineker clause" for a reason. His rights are fully intact notwithstanding, namely his right to terminate this contract and pursue any other opportunity he wishes.

2. Lineker spoke at length to millions (billions?) on Qatari human rights on opening night of the BBC's Football World Cup programming, and the views he gave broadly matched his own well known personal views. This reportedly followed Lineker winning the day in a fierce internal editorial debate regarding neutrality and the difference between political and sports programming, raging as it was in the public realm on the eve of the WC, perhaps by leveraging his value to the corporation as a Top Link sports presenter who can (allegedly) walk into any other big job if he was ever sacked.

3. Lineker has form for making his strongly held opinions known, and then staying silent as debate rages (evidently to avoid him having to square his high principles with the dirty reality of the real world). For example, ex-England footballer Lineker (arguably his primary means of being a widely known and respected giver of his personal opinions) evidently saw no issue with BBC News and political output raising the issue of ex-England players profiting from Qatari sports-washing, even as he fronted the BBC's coverage of the World Cup in Qatar.

No rights without responsibilities.

No having your cake eating it.

These British values are as old as football itself.

 

[WatcherZero]

Cross Bench Member of The Lords Communication and Digital Communications Committee Baroness Wheatcroft calling for the suspension of the BBC Chairman.

The BBC has "failed" to apply its guidelines fairly, Baroness Wheatcroft has claimed as the fallout of Gary Lineker's suspension continues.
"The problem is that the BBC has guidelines, but it doesn't apply them fairly," the crossbench peer, who sits on the Lords Communications and Digital Committee, told Radio 4.
"I mean, guidelines only work if they are applied right across the board within the scope of the guidelines, and clearly the BBC has failed on that."
She said the corporation "should work very closely with both sides, as far as politics go, to come up with a policy that it will then apply across the board".
In the meantime, she said, it should "call for the suspension" of "clearly party political" chairman Richard Sharp, who helped Boris Johnson secure an £800,000 loan facility.

Gary Lineker latest: Presenter posts new refugees tweet as details emerge of BBC deal; Tory MPs vent anger over return; pressure mounts on corporation chairman

Follow the latest updates as the BBC and Gary Lineker agree a deal for him to return to presenting duties - and the corporation's chairman faces mounting pressure after its weekend football coverage was left in ruins.

news.sky.com

 

[nw1]

The whole thing is disgusting and smacks of double standards at the heart of the BBC.

Gary Lineker is not a political presenter, thus, from my understanding, he is allowed to tweet what he likes (within reason). To me it comes across as politically-motivated; it's well established that the chairman of the BBC, Richard Sharp, has been a Tory donor with close relationships to Johnson and Sunak.

Of course, it's perfectly OK for the BBC chairman to be an individual with strong and blatant political bias.

Secondly there appears to be selectivity on what tweets are "allowed" from prominent BBC presenters and what are not. Why, for example, was no action taken against this on Twitter from Lord Sugar:

https://twitter.com/Lord_Sugar/status/1602582007229333504

Mick Lynch loves the cameras. He got stitched up by @GMB today. Next thing is he will be doing strictly or appearing on Graham Norton. Any one know how much he is paid.

Not because it expressed a sentiment broadly in line with the Government's own views, by any chance?

And this blatant abuse from the same individual, also on Twitter, towards someone who replied to him, is of course completely acceptable:

https://twitter.com/Lord_Sugar/status/1632802785975492609?cxt=HHwWgoCz5fPe8KgtAAAA

Shut it idiot

I am glad that there has been a strong reaction from others in the world of football to this apparent attempt to silence a strident opponent of the Government.

 

[SuspectUsual]

An example that comes to mind is that the actual name of Arsenal's home stadium is Ashburton Grove, but is referred to on the show and sports reports as the Emirates. This is blatantly advertising a product.

That’s just not true. The ground is renamed for the duration of the contract, same as all the others. It was only known as Ashburton Grove during the construction phase

 

[nw1]

Cross Bench Member of The Lords Communication and Digital Communications Committee Baroness Wheatcroft calling for the suspension of the BBC Chairman.

Absolutely. That Tory, Sharp, has to go.

 

[Fleetmaster]

I'll turn it around, to those defending Lineker, would you be as defensive towards him and his position if he had been pulled on the grounds of breaking impartiality by tweeting something like "brilliant decision by the Tories, people need to get behind the government rather than continuously being on their backs"?

This is a misleading representation of the theoretical flip side, as I have already explained.

To repeat, to test whether neutrality is real in how the BBC applies policy, If Lineker had tweeted "Government messaging on this new migrant policy resembles the [insert name of famously benevolent and compassionate historical regime of your choice here]", there would quite clearly have been outrage and calls for censure and even sacking, just from the left not the right.

Lineker would have faced the same sanction (a request to stand down until he agrees to follow BBC policy in future) and caused a public furore. Opposite view, but the same counter-productive and entirely ridiculous reaction. Neutrality's utility as a BBC policy, proven (if you can't win your argument with unbiased views, you have probably not made your argument very well).

It likely irks Lineker and his supporters that the furore would likely be less severe and impactful, reflecting their enduring dislike of the fact Britain is a society and democracy that tends to be right leaning (because media! lol).

 

[Edsmith]

He represents the BBC and people will automatically associate him with the BBC because of his long term and high profile role he has within the corporation, so he should take some responsibility.

I agree that the whole thing is a nonsense, but I put most of the blame on Lineker for posting the tweet in the first place - he knew full well that it would put the Beeb in a difficult position, and he didn't need to do it. All it has done has stirred up more controversy and bickering between political sides.

Exactly, Lineker has deliberately done this to stir up controversy and arguments.

As for MOTD I think it might be a good time for a complete revamp, do we really need these overpaid pundits telling us the obvious?

 

[Howardh]

Cancel culture? Isn't that something to do with Transpennine Express?

There's a point there. Suppose Lineker had tweeted that the new HS2 policies announced this week were wrong? Or that he thinks HS2 should be cancelled?? Bet none of that would raise an eyebrow, yet it's political and relevant. All he's done is upset the right-wing political establishment.

 

[Mag_seven]

Can I remind everyone of the forum rule requirement that when referring to external sources such as Twitter etc you must put an extract of the text linked to in quote tags.

This is to assist blind users who may find it difficult navigating to and from external sites.

thanks

 

[nw1]

He wasn't just commenting on politics though, he was attacking a new government policy and made a provocative comparison to further his point, and it's followed a number of similar incidents on his twitter over the years, seemingly part of an anti-Tory agenda, of which the BBC have already told him they're not happy about. It's a clear breach of impartiality because he represents the BBC.

Whereas Lord Sugar can say what he likes?

Whereas it's perfectly OK for a Tory donor with close links to Johnson and Sunak to be BBC chairman?

Spot the hypocrisy.

 

[43096]

There will be no football focus or final score this afternoon.

It looks the bbc have lost the dressing room. Get Allerdyce in until the end of the season

I'm glad I wasn't taking a drink when I read that. Just a brilliant post!

 

[nw1]

I didnt have motd presenters and pundits down as the next group of striking workers!

Good on Lineker's co-presenters for taking a strong moral stance.

 

[WizCastro197]

Final Score has been replaced by the Repair Shop this afternoon, after the presenter pulled out.

https://twitter.com/jasonmohammad/status/1634502438064648192

Morning all. As you know, Final Score is a TV show very close to my heart. However - I have this morning informed the BBC that I will not be presenting the show this afternoon on BBC One.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/entertainment-arts-64895316?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=640c642eb0a62a7df8d99c91%26Final%20Score%20replaced%20with%20The%20Repair%20Shop%262023-03-11T11%3A23%3A34.185Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:92d37f5c-c7a5-4b57-86cf-2fbd1fee48e4&pinned_post_asset_id=640c642eb0a62a7df8d99c91&pinned_post_type=share

Final Score replaced with The Repair Shop​

Final Score has been replaced by The Repair Shop at 4:30pm on the BBC One schedule.
It comes after presenter Jason Mohammad said he would not be presenting the show.

 

[nw1]

Yes fortunately there are some like you who don't count as hypocrites here, Piers Morgan also seems to think so. It's some of the GB News presenters/commentators and some other high profile figures who have claimed to be in favour of free speech but in the case of Lineker are quite happy for him to be cancelled for his views. If there were no double standards I'd be more sympathetic to them, even if on their own specific views I don't agree with most of them.

Indeed. It's ironic that "cancel culture" is something generally used against the left by the right, but now, it appears that some on the right are seemingly wishing to "cancel" Gary Lineker.

They seem to think that he is trivialising the horrors of Nazi Germany but he is not. It was just an emotional outburst. Gary Lineker is absolutely not someone who doesn't care about the horrors of Nazi Germany, by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone with half a brain would of course realise that.

For example, this article from the Express (yes, I know):

Group of 36 Tory MPs and peers write to BBC chief demanding Gary Lineker investigation

Tory MPs demand BBC undertakes independent Lineker investigation

EXCLUSIVE - Three dozen Conservative Parliamentarians have told BBC boss Tim Davie he must start a full and independent investigation into Gary Lineker's comments.

www.express.co.uk

I see the names include well-known foaming-at-the-mouth right-winger Jonathan Gullis, together with (IMO) faux-libertarian Desmond Swayne, who was critical of Government Covid policy in late 2021 but now appears to be amongst a group of right-wingers who want a full investigation.

This lot are only libertarians when it suits them. When their beloved Conservative Party is under scrutiny, they're quite happy to turn into full-on authoritarians.

The right are every bit as willing to employ authoritarian "cancel culture" as some on the left. It's not a left-right issue, it's a libertarian-authoritarian issue. And IMO, the likes of Swayne have shown their true colours over this.

I intensely dislike Roger Daltrey's views on Brexit and immigration. But I am not "cancelling" him; I still enjoy listening to the Who's music. Same with Trump voter John Lydon; he spouts utter rubbish but I continue to like much of his music.

 

[brad465]

As has already been pointed out, Neil's ability to be impartial when it matters, is well known. And unlike Lineker, it's highly unlikely that Neil was being watched by anyone who didn't already know their own mind, or Neil's personal views. Lineker reaches the youth and the undecided, allegedly (wildly inaccurate claims in both respects imho).

Yeah, on his programmes Neil was fine, it was more on his Twitter he voiced views of his own, which is also fine because nobody has to look at Twitter and it's outside his remit. If Lineker said what he said on MOTD then the criticism would make sense. And before you bring it up again, the Qatar statement was half-hearted virtue signalling and shouldn't have happened, he/they should have done a full boycott. If anything this goes back to the double standards of why did the BBC allow him to say that on the show then, but not what he said off the air earlier this week?

It is ironic to keep bringing up Neil anyway, because he was effectively forced out of the BBC because they refused to accommodate his not unreasonable request for more sociable hours given his advancing years, and move his very popular late night show to the early evening. It was widely seen as an underhand means for the BBC to get an old white expensive dude off the airwaves, in favour of some diversity. His slot was duly filled by a podcast hosted by Laura Kuunsberg, who has famously also had to leave the BBC since because it was becoming rather obvious she had strong opinions and was letting that affect the perceived impartiality of her role as a political correspondent.

Kuenssberg hasn't fully left the BBC as she's doing her own political Sunday show and writes articles about its content just before broadcast. Yes she has stepped down from the more senior role she was doing, so the question is that should she still be doing that show if her strong opinions are too visible? Worth also remembering she's doing it because Andrew Marr stepped down and where he has now gone he makes his opinions much more known than he did during his show, so he I think did it well when on the BBC.

Lord Sugar is a very different case. He is a Lord, obviously, so the situation you are effectively proposing, is that no politicians can have non-political presenting roles in the BBC. That is obviously wrong, another clear sign of the backward trajectory where we seem to want our politicians to have absolutely no real world experience at all.

We shouldn't have unelected Lords in Parliament of any political allegiance, but that's another story.

And this is all ignoring the fact that if Linekers only defence is "what about X/Y/Z, they breach too?", he has no defence. Pun intended.

It's not his only defence, okay the language choice didn't entirely help and I would have used some more modern examples if it was me, but the wider policy area should be debated, and it seems the media at large are trying to focus on Lineker's specific opinion and the manner he expressed it in rather than actually discuss more important matters, including regarding the actual policy.

 

[JamesT]

Politics has been brought into football in recent years. Qatar, BLM (taking the knee). BBC impartiality automatically then has problems.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2023 ==


The BBC negotiates with Lineker's limited company for his services. So he pays corporate tax. He is not an employee.

The taxman would beg to differ. Lineker is currently being investigated as although he’s paid via a company, his relationship with the BBC is more akin to an employee.

Gary Lineker’s lawyers say HMRC tax inquiry ‘looking in the wrong place’

HMRC is pursuing the Match of the Day host for £4.9m that it said should have been paid on income

www.theguardian.com

Gary Lineker’s lawyers have told a legal hearing that a tax inquiry into the footballer’s finances has been “looking in the wrong place”.

The Match Of The Day host was told by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) that he should have been classed as an employee of the BBC and BT Sport for his presenting duties, rather than as a freelancer.

HMRC is now pursuing him for £4.9m that it said should have been paid on income received between 2013 and 2018.

It comes as part of legislation known as IR35, designed to clampdown on tax avoidance by so-called disguised employees, who charge for their services via limited companies.

 

[Intercity110]

By the way, the Lineker situation is taking precedence, but he's not the only one the BBC have taken off air: David Attenborough's latest show has been pulled, with the Guardian claiming it's due to a fear of Government backlash. The BBC have denied that was the reason. Being the Guardian the natural instinct is this could be a biased view of why the show was canned, but outlets do tend to ensure their sources are good and if this is definitively false then the BBC could always sue The Guardian for libel and be confident of winning.

BBC will not broadcast Attenborough episode over fear of ‘rightwing backlash’

Exclusive: Decision to make episode about natural destruction available only on iPlayer angers programme-makers

www.theguardian.com

I don’t care about gary linikier, but David Attenborough? Really BBC? i’ve always supported the BBC but now? Not really.

 

[nw1]

but David Attenborough? Really BBC? i’ve always supported the BBC but now? Not really.

That is disturbing. That really does need a full investigation.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2023 ==

It's not his only defence, okay the language choice didn't entirely help and I would have used some more modern examples if it was me, but the wider policy area should be debated, and it seems the media at large are trying to focus on Lineker's specific opinion and the manner he expressed it in rather than actually discuss more important matters, including regarding the actual policy.

His other defence of course is that he found the Government policy on migrants repugnant, and, as a public and respected figure, believed he could help change things by tweeting a critique. Granted, the language used was excessively emotional but I think we're all guilty of that at times.

The Goverment's asylum-seeker policy is a pretty hardline policy, and I can understand why it enrages people. It annoys me, and I don't consider Braverman someone neutral on these matters, nor someone I trust to take a middle-of-the-road approach on things.

 

[87electric]

The taxman would beg to differ. Lineker is currently being investigated as although he’s paid via a company, his relationship with the BBC is more akin to an employee.

Gary Lineker’s lawyers say HMRC tax inquiry ‘looking in the wrong place’

HMRC is pursuing the Match of the Day host for £4.9m that it said should have been paid on income

www.theguardian.com

And if that Guardian article is read in full, you will see that similar investigations by the HMRC on other broadcasters were overturned on appeal.
Granted, each case will be different on its own merits. It will be certainly be interesting to see the result of Linekers.

 

[dosxuk]

If the BBC were hoping this would go away if they just convinced Lineker to retract his comment, it looks like that has completely blown up in their faces.

They now have basically the entire Sport department, employees and freelancers, refusing to work, and now some of their other stars are doubling down on Lineker's comments.

Match of the Day pundit Ian Wright has said he'll quit the BBC if it "gets rid" of Lineker.

"If they get rid of Gary Lineker, I'm out, I'm gone, I'm not staying there," he said on the latest edition of his podcast Wrighty's House.

"On his own platform, he should be able to say what he wants to say," the former Arsenal player said.

Wright also said he agreed with Lineker's tweet about the government's new asylum bill.

He said the row was "the prefect distraction for this government".

"They've got no empathy" and "the most vulnerable ones are always the ones that suffer," he added.

"He [Lineker] is so right with what's he's saying."

Now Wright is repeating Lineker's comments, is he going to be suspended too?

 

[AlterEgo]

Regarding all the fuss about impartiality with the Beeb, how about the blatant breach of rules on advertising on MotD?

An example that comes to mind is that the actual name of Arsenal's home stadium is Ashburton Grove, but is referred to on the show and sports reports as the Emirates. This is blatantly advertising a product.

West Ham's former home was referred to both as the Boleyn Ground and Upton Park, but neither were advertising a product at all.

But Arsenal’s stadium is the Emirates. That’s its name. What else would you like, all the advertising hoardings to be blocked out as well, the shirts blurred?

Arsenal is a brand as well. Should they call them “North London Red” like they’re a Pro Evo team?