Any thoughts on Gary Lineker’s tweets?

[DustyBin]

It’s quite depressing to see people use holocaust survivors as a rhetorical shield for their personal beliefs about language. In this case, it’s a well-paid BBC presenter having sent a tweet.

This debacle makes everyone invested in it look worse than they did this time last week. Every participant is unwise, from the BBC DG, to Lineker, to the Tory grandees moaning about it, to the swarms of people making it Item number one on social media.

Lineker was entitled to say what he said. It wasn’t especially intelligent or thoughtful - any invocations of 1930s Germany to a modern, multi racial liberal democracy with gay marriage are always dumb and make whoever says it look silly. But he is a television presenter so really who cares? Nobody could reasonably interpret it as the BBC’s opinion and he shouldn’t have been suspended. If push came to shove I’d much rather stand next to Lineker than some of the absolute melts in the Tory party who have been fuelling this, but I just think everyone looks silly.

The sooner people apprise the current dire political situation in this country on its own terms instead of *big sigh* comparing it to Nazi Germany, the sooner we’ll be out of this political mess.

Nicely put!

 

[nw1]

A perfect example of what happens when you let kids be taught by Professor Lineker.

Real Nazism ffs.

The Nazis banned free speech and political parties in 1933.

Hitler assumed total power in 1934.

I can't wait for Real Toryism to kick in!

I was talking about the early years of the 1930s, before the dictatorship kicked in.

And I do agree, it was over-the-top emotional language from Lineker, for point of clarification. But we all do that at times. Alan Sugar certainly has.

And it is no excuse for Lineker being silenced.

 

[GS250]

He has taken refugees into his home at least once.

That's good for him. Actions always speak louder than words.

Is this a longer term plan or just to look good?

I still think he and his bourgeois chums should actually be doing more though to tackle the issues they apparently care so much about.

 

[Fleetmaster]

I was talking about the early years of the 1930s, before the dictatorship kicked in.

This really isn't the distinction you think it is.

It was a lazy and ignorant analogy.

People don't seem to realise, it's incredibly easy to raise the spectre of the Nazis via confirmation bias.

What does this sound like to you?...

"In the final years of the Weimar Republic (1930 to 1933), the government ruled by emergency decree because it could not attain a parliamentary majority. Political and economic instability, coupled with voter dissatisfaction with the status quo, benefitted the Nazi Party."

"Widespread economic misery, fear, and perception of worse times to come, as well as anger and impatience with the apparent failure of the government to manage the crisis, offered fertile ground for the rise of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party."

That's from the Holocaust Museum. Imagine how pissed off they would be if someone read that, and assumed, through their own sheer ignorance, that this must mean that the language used in UK politics at large for the last two years, or post-Brexit, is similar to what must have been going on in Germnay at the time.

They would be mightily pissed off because they have the whole picture.....

"In the Reichstag (parliament) elections of May 2, 1928, the Nazis received only 2.6 percent of the national vote"

"Hitler and other Nazi speakers carefully tailored their speeches to each audience. For example, when speaking to businessmen, the Nazis downplayed antisemitism and instead emphasized anti-communism and the return of German colonies lost through the Treaty of Versailles. When addressed to soldiers, veterans, or other nationalist interest groups, Nazi propaganda emphasized military buildup and return of other territories lost after Versailles. Nazi speakers assured farmers in the northern state of Schleswig-Holstein that a Nazi government would prop up falling agricultural prices. Pensioners all over Germany were told that both the amounts and the buying power of their monthly checks would remain stable."

"In July 1932, the Nazi Party became the largest political party in the Reichstag with 230 representatives"

"As a result of the Nazis’ mass support, German president Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor on January 30, 1933"

....which shows pretty clearly that anyone in Britain with even the tiniest political education, likely sees Lineker's Tweets as absurd. Either he is comparing the Tories to the BNP, or he is in fear of the BNP growing from the irrelevance it is now to winning a general election in 2024.

Christ, Nigel Farage probably dreams of a day the logical inference of what Gary said, is even half true, because he would be on track to be Prime Minister in 2025. The problem with Professor Lineker is, given all the historical context, is that he has also made an argument that Farage could have become Prime Minister as early as 2019. The conditions were all there, if comparing Germany's political history, no? Post-Brexit, we came awfully close to Her Maj having to issue decrees, due to the political paralysis.

The real kicker? Take a look at who nearly came to power in France very recently.

Far right means far right. The correct use of language is a must, if you want to be seen as impartial as well as intellectually persuasive. Avoiding causing needless offence is just a bonus.

The left want far right to mean either the Tory Party as a whole or the radical right wing of the Tories. This is why they can't win elections, because people whose opinions are reasonable, do not appreciate comparisons to Nazis, which are easily offensive enough to override any thoughts they may have on progressive tax polices as they cast their ballot.

Gary has reportedly already admitted he knows he went too far. Damn straight. Won't admit it publicly of course.

There is a reason every sensible politician, but notably not the far right, always responds to the sort of idiocy of Lineker, is "well, I wouldn't have put it in those terms...." before going on to agree or disagree with the underneath point.

And it is no excuse for Lineker being silenced.

This is absurd. The entire argument of his defenders and those claiming the BBC is in the thrall of the Nazi Party Tory Party, is that he is innocent because he never said what he did on a BBC platform. He has only been removed from BBC platforms, and only as a temporary measure at that.

His ability to Tweet his ignorant and offensive garbage remains the same as it always was, at least as he was it. If the prospect of losing his lucrative BBC job is affecting what he Tweets since then, which It appears it is, well, I guess we know how important, or unimportant, the prospective rise of a Nazi style dictatorship in Britain really is to him.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Lineker will return on Saturday.

 

[WatcherZero]

Rumours coming out of imminent settlement, Lineker to receive apology from BBC and return. BBC to backoff on social media guidance with a review into loosening it.

 

[nw1]

His ability to Tweet his ignorant and offensive garbage remains the same as it always was, at least as he was it. If the prospect of losing his lucrative BBC job is affecting what he Tweets since then, which It appears it is, well, I guess we know how important, or unimportant, the prospective rise of a Nazi style dictatorship in Britain really is to him.

Do you honestly think that Gary Lineker doesn't care about the horrors of Nazi Germany?

I'm sorry, but to me, you seem to be using that as an excuse to justify your own views on the matter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2023 ==

This is absurd. The entire argument of his defenders and those claiming the BBC is in the thrall of the Nazi Party Tory Party, is that he is innocent because he never said what he did on a BBC platform. He has only been removed from BBC platforms, and only as a temporary measure at that.

I say again, no-one is saying the Tories are Nazis. That's purely in your imagination.

However it does seem a bit suspect when you have a BBC run by a Tory donor and Lineker was suspended from Match of the Day. If Lineker had said something agreeing with government policy using equally over-the-top language, would he be suspended? I suspect not.

 

[Howardh]

Rumours coming out of imminent settlement, Lineker to receive apology from BBC and return. BBC to backoff on social media guidance with a review into loosening it.

Excellent news. Glad the BBC have backed down for the sake of freedom of tweets. But I wish we had an alternative programme without presenters and pundits, and we just got the full highlights!!

 

[nw1]

That's good for him. Actions always speak louder than words.

Is this a longer term plan or just to look good?

I still think he and his bourgeois chums should actually be doing more though to tackle the issues they apparently care so much about.

"Bourgeois chums"?

If the right attacked the likes of the Shell or Southern Water CEOs as much as they did wealthy liberals, this country would be a considerably better place.

 

[Darandio]

That's good for him. Actions always speak louder than words.

Is this a longer term plan or just to look good?

I still think he and his bourgeois chums should actually be doing more though to tackle the issues they apparently care so much about.

He started campaigning about it in 2015 and has taken in at least two refugees since then but presumably two in eight years won't be enough for those wanting to beat him with that stick.

 

[Fleetmaster]

Lineker was entitled to say what he said. It wasn’t especially intelligent or thoughtful - any invocations of 1930s Germany to a modern, multi racial liberal democracy with gay marriage are always dumb and make whoever says it look silly. But he is a television presenter so really who cares? Nobody could reasonably interpret it as the BBC’s opinion and he shouldn’t have been suspended. If push came to shove I’d much rather stand next to Lineker than some of the absolute melts in the Tory party who have been fuelling this, but I just think everyone looks silly.

How do you know that? As has already been argued (in his defence!) in here, even non-news Lineker in his role in the BBC, either has strong input to, or with his power to withdraw his Labour has perhaps even directly affected according to some reports, BBC editorial decisions on the programmes he fronts.

Match of the Day and all the BBC's football content necessarily strays into political areas, such as these topical ssues....

- Human rights in Qatar, and sportswashing in general
- Racism in society and British institutions (police, FA, govt)
- Free school meals
- Fan led review into football governance (a government initiative)

 

[bspahh]

Linekar has written https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1635222269172781056

After a surreal few days, I’m delighted that we have navigated a way through this. I want to thank you all for the incredible support, particularly my colleagues at BBC Sport, for the remarkable show of solidarity. Football is a team game but their backing was overwhelming.

I have been presenting sport on the BBC for almost 3 decades and am immeasurably proud to work with the best and fairest broadcaster in the world. I cannot wait to get back in the MOTD chair on Saturday.

A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you.

We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people. Thank you.

 

[Fleetmaster]

My guess is those increased viewing figures are audiences rubbernecking at the pure novelty of a televisual car crash. Even I watched it for a bit out of morbid curiosity and I don't give a damn about football.

So did I.

It helped me realise how much the commentary drowns out the atmosphere (who has the loudest and most passionate fans being a perennial debate in football), specifically how much it masks that crucial post-goal eruption of pure collective joy. Educate, inform, entertain.

It makes me wonder if they have ever even considered not using the live commentary, which necessariky has to be reactive in the moment, and instead use a highlights specific method, where the commentator can leave sensible gaps. Probably cost too much, especially after Lineker has picked up his wages (with a forklift).

It also made me wonder why the BBC are actually forcing me to stay up well past my bed time, and pushes their NFL highlights show into the witching hour, when, given the literal highlights the BBC are entitled to show are so short apparently, just 20 minutes, the show could be finished much earlier, at a far more reasonable time.

While a certain amount of analysis is nice, those who are desperate to hear every word that the likes of Shearer and Ian Wright Wright Wright have to say, bearing in mind that by the time MoTD actually comes on, a billion words of analysis have already been produced across multiple platforms, can be duly directed to the red button, like so many millions of other BBC viewers are forced to do.

 

[OuterDistant]

I suspected this would be the outcome. The BBC would probably have been taken to the cleaners if it had gone legal.

 

[AlterEgo]

How do you know that? As has already been argued (in his defence!) in here, even non-news Lineker in his role in the BBC, either has strong input to, or with his power to withdraw his Labour has perhaps even directly affected according to some reports, BBC editorial decisions on the programmes he fronts.

That’s not a very good defence of Lineker - no reasonable person thinks the official BBC line is that the government is using the language of the 1930s. It’s very clear Lineker was sending a dangerous tweet and one his employer wouldn’t really care much for.

There are lots of unreasonable people out there too of course.

 

[Darandio]

Probably cost too much, especially after Lineker has picked up his wages (with a forklift).

Whilst the motivation for the replies in this thread have been pretty clear from the outset, this confirms it. Thanks.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Whilst the motivation for the replies in this thread have been pretty clear from the outset, this confirms it. Thanks.

Quite.

 

[nlogax]

It makes me wonder if they have ever even considered not using the live commentary, which necessariky has to be reactive in the moment, and instead use a highlights specific method, where the commentator can leave sensible gaps. Probably cost too much, especially after Lineker has picked up his wages (with a forklift).

You can breathe easy now and find something else to watch. He's confirmed to be back in the MotD seat from next weekend, presumably the commentators will be too.

 

[43096]

So did I.

It helped me realise how much the commentary drowns out the atmosphere (who has the loudest and most passionate fans being a perennial debate in football), specifically how much it masks that crucial post-goal eruption of pure collective joy. Educate, inform, entertain.

But inaccessible for people with restricted vision who rely on the commentary.

Probably cost too much, especially after Lineker has picked up his wages (with a forklift).

And there we have it. The real reason for your postings: jealousy.

 

[Fleetmaster]

It’s a fair point. But another Holocaust survivor has also compared Suella Braverman’s language to the language of 1930s Germany. The point is, not every Jewish person (or any other groups affected by the Holocaust) thinks the same things.

That is indeed the point. Someone mindful of impartiality bears that in mind before opening their gob at all.

Is Lineker's right to free expression more important than retaining the public's trust that everyone who represents the BBC in whatever way, has this basic skill and indeed cares about trust in the BBC at all?

I guess we now know. His right to free expression here derived from a "grey area" the he exploited after the event, rather than seeking clarification before the event. The irony that this allegedly ambiguous policy is termed the Lineker clause, is palpable.

It should probably be pointed out yet again that Lineker did not compare the Tories to the Nazis. He compared the language used. Bit of a difference.

Yes, one that has been pointed out a lot, and to be honest, to most people, reads like a deliberate attempt to have his cake and eat it. Which it probably (hopefully) wasn't, but it is noted Gary has had ample opportunity to clarify his intent, but he has not.

Why else would someone want to use the rhetoric of the Nazi Party, if they didn't share the motivations or strategic goals of the Nazi Party? And if all he meant was, hey, these horrible Tories are engaging in the time honoured tradition of pushing voter's buttons to elicit an emotional reaction for a purpose no more heinous than winning the next election (where we can reasonably assume they have no plans to then seize unilateral power and ban political parties and free speech and purge all public institutions of non-Tories pending their mass deportation and liquidation and embark on World War Three to distract from the fact their policies haven't fulfilled their rhetorical promises to the pure blood British people who elected them in their millions), then why did he not just say that?

He would have without doubt been summarily fired if he had Tweeted "The Tory Party of today are like the Nazi Party of the 1930s", and we'd all be sitting here waiting with baited breath to see who shares this opinion in the BBC. My guess would be nobody.

 

[Philip]

Rumours coming out of imminent settlement, Lineker to receive apology from BBC and return. BBC to backoff on social media guidance with a review into loosening it.

Not quite as you put it, Lineker has also been asked and agreed to moderate his tweets to abide by BBC guidelines until a review has taken place by the BBC about its impartiality guidelines and how this affects social media usage, with them saying it is currently too much of a grey area.

 

[Fleetmaster]

That’s not a very good defence of Lineker - no reasonable person thinks the official BBC line is that the government is using the language of the 1930s. It’s very clear Lineker was sending a dangerous tweet and one his employer wouldn’t really care much for.

There are lots of unreasonable people out there too of course.

I ask again, how do you know that?

How do you *know* Lineker's editorial decisions regarding how MoTD covers issues like free school meals or racism in the police aren't being influenced by his apparently strongly held belief that the Home Secretary is not above dehumanizing human beings to achieve her political goals (or is enacting the will of Cabinet government)?

This is not theoretical. Football knows all too well that in the past, football fans have been dehumanized to achieve political goals. Strong rhetoric and an unhealthy relationship with the media were key to that.

Things are better here now. It's the French who still treat football fans as animals. And that's the Macron government! Imagine what the second place Presidential candidate would be like. Doesn't seem to have even occurred to those who think we have something to learn from the supposedly compassionate and progressive French.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2023 ==

I suspected this would be the outcome. The BBC would probably have been taken to the cleaners if it had gone legal.

Lineker would have had his ass handed to him if a court was asked to decide if the so called Lineker clause was in any way unclear. Because it really isn't. He ticked all the boxes. His profile. His choice of platform. What he tweeted. All are explicitly covered by the clause. Bang to rights.

On the other hand, we could have seen the court rule that the BBC's rules on impartiality are incompatible with the right to free speech, which, while technically a victory for Lineker, would be the beginning of the end of the BBC as we know it. Absolutely no reason to pay your license fee for something with less obligations to the public than Joe Schmoe Media plc.

A third outcome is Lineker winning on a technicality, where despite this not being how most people view him, he somehow escapes his obligations under the Lineker clause because he is a freelancer. A phyyric victory for Lineker, albeit with less potential to hasten the end of the BBC as we know it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2023 ==

Whilst the motivation for the replies in this thread have been pretty clear from the outset, this confirms it. Thanks.

Are you ignoring me because my motivation is disagreeable to you then?

How ironic.

Millions of people are disgusted by how much BBC stars are paid (and the tax avoiding way in which is done, which we can see now, is apparently also a convenient loophole to get yourself out from under neutrality obligations).

You can't ignore them all. Or you can, just don't be surprised if the next election is yet another case of the left being completely blindsided.

We're not all Nazis.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2023 ==

Not quite as you put it, Lineker has also been asked and agreed to moderate his tweets to abide by BBC guidelines

Actually, we are now in the absurd position where the original guidelines are still in effect, Lineker hasn't publicly admitted to breaking them, the BBC have not said he didn't break then, so with nobody wanting another mass walkout, I guess that means he can carry on Tweeting about Nazis without fear of any consequences.

We are all being taken for fools here, given Lineker has already reportedly admitted in private that he went too far.

until a review has taken place by the BBC about its impartiality guidelines and how this affects social media usage, with them saying it is currently too much of a grey area.

And to be even more specific, It is a review with a "focus on how it applies to freelancers outside news and current affairs.", which seems to prove Lineker was only able to get out of this jam by appealing to a technicality.

I certainly can't see any logical reason why a freelancer should have any less due care and attention for the BBC's commitment to impartiality while fronting BBC coverage as a high profile personality. Not to mention that Lineker's status as a freelancer, until this broohaha, was entirely unknown to the vast majority of the public (most only being aware of it because he is a tax avoider).

Perhaps the guidelines will be updated to say that freelancers shall be visually identified on screen, so that we might be able to tell them apart from the BBC staff. Maybe someone should Tweet about what that sounds like.

 

[WatcherZero]

Not quite as you put it, Lineker has also been asked and agreed to moderate his tweets to abide by BBC guidelines until a review has taken place by the BBC about its impartiality guidelines and how this affects social media usage, with them saying it is currently too much of a grey area.

Independent review with a focus on freelancers outside news and current affairs. Settlement and independent review agreement reached by the Executive rather than the Board which is significant (i.e. day to day operations rather than the BBC policy setters with the board saying it approves of the agreement for a review reached by the executive).

 

[MikeWM]

It’s a fair point. But another Holocaust survivor has also compared Suella Braverman’s language to the language of 1930s Germany. The point is, not every Jewish person (or any other groups affected by the Holocaust) thinks the same things.

Exactly this, and we should always remember that about *any* group of people. (Indeed, assuming any particular group of people all think alike is surely a deeply problematic attitude *in itself*!)

I agree that drawing comparisons to 1930s Germany is often lazy, though I also understand the temptation to do so, given it is one historical analogy that almost everyone believes they understand (note I said *believes*. That doesn't mean that they do necessarily understand it!) So while I strongly disagree with Lineker's point, I do understand why he made it in the way that he did.

But equally I don't like that some organisations appear to think they can gatekeep such analogies. Warnings from history are there to be recognised in order that we avoid them. And sometimes pointing out that something is rather like something else, that ended very badly, is a rather good thing to do to make people think.

I don't think for example that a journalist should be called an a****le for making this entirely reasonable and sensible argument:

“A key tenet of Holocaust education is never again, for anyone. The Holocaust is unique, but ‘never again’ is universal. Drawing out similarities and parallels is critical and part of the education.”

and yet the Board of Deputies of British Jews did just that! Admittedly they've apologised, but you do have to wonder who is running their Twitter account and why they think that is an acceptable argument.

 

[jon0844]

They only apologised for using the word asshole it seems?

 

[GS250]

I agree that drawing comparisons to 1930s Germany is often lazy, though I also understand the temptation to do so, given it is one historical analogy that almost everyone believes they understand (note I said *believes*. That doesn't mean that they do necessarily understand it!) So while I strongly disagree with Lineker's point, I do understand why he made it in the way that he did.

It works both ways I guess. Comparisons with being a Nazi for wanting to control immigration numbers is pathetic yet often seen on SM discussion. On the other hand simply labelling anyone as a 'commie' because they genuinely believe that a socialist system would be fairer is also not helpful.

I think the issue for the wealthy types like Lineker is that they attract the 'champagne socialist' accusations of which sadly do have some substance. No one likes a Tory apparently but no one likes a vocal leftist who is in the top .5% of the Nation's wealthy and expects everyone else bar themselves to take action.

 

[Fleetmaster]

I don't think for example that a journalist should be called an a****le for making this entirely reasonable and sensible argument:

“A key tenet of Holocaust education is never again, for anyone. The Holocaust is unique, but ‘never again’ is universal. Drawing out similarities and parallels is critical and part of the education.”

and yet the Board of Deputies of British Jews did just that! Admittedly they've apologised, but you do have to wonder who is running their Twitter account and why they think that is an acceptable argument.

They apologised for the insult.

The journalist responded to the apology by doubling down and trying to get that person banned from Twitter.

They did that so that they could completely ignore the wider point that if you want to tell the Holocaust Educational Trust that they don't know how to educate people about the Holocaust, you better be bringing more than the weak intellectual sauce they brought to the party.

Never again is indeed a useful maxim. The Holocaust Educational Trust, like most serious academics I guess, can predict what will happen if analogies to the Nazis become commonplace. They lose all meaning. Thus nobody really cares when the millionth never again moment is run up the Twitter flag pole by someone who completely lacks any sense of perspective and certainly isn't an historian.

Never again indeed. You would think from usages like that, that we weren't already living In a time of mass displacement and indeed murder of people simply because of their race or religion. That only language was the problem.

In the wake of this furore, John Barnes asked the question, is racism the reason why we are now allegedly more generous to Ukrainian refugees than the black and brown people poised to allegedly invade us from their Calais staging grounds? His point was not taken up for wider debate, and presumably that was because he didn't invoke the spectre of the Nazis, despite the fact the Nazis were big fans of kinship guiding migration policy. Especially in that rhetorical era before the "Real Nazism" began lol.

This is how debate goes when the Professor Linekers at Twitter University are given the impression by tussles like this, that their right to say something they believe to be true and helpful, supercedes other's right to challenge it, be they experts or fellow laypersons.

 

[Howardh]

So, has the policy on Small Boats and the silencing of Lineker worked for the Tories?

Delta Poll UK

Con 27% (-4)
Lab 50% (+3)
Lib Dem 9% (+1)
Other 15% (+1)
Fieldwork: 10th - 13th March 2023 Sample: 1,561 GB adults (Changes from 2nd - 6th March 2023)

https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1635226204155576320?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1635226204155576320%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

 

[MikeWM]

They only apologised for using the word asshole it seems?

Well, yes, presumably they still stand by their original point:

However passionately we feel about important and pressing issues of the day, comparing those current concerns with the unimaginable horrors of the Nazi period is wrong.

which is itself a fair perspective, though one you ought to be able to disagree with (without being insulted!) if you think we're in danger of going down the same road.

The key point to me is that the Nazi period didn't *start* with these unimaginable horrors, they were the end-result of a ongoing program of propaganda, dehumanisation and othering of parts of society. It seems far better to me to try to and stop that process happening right at the start before it gets traction, so early analogies can be helpful in this case.

We had similar discussions of course quite recently over covid measures and how those opposed to them were portrayed by the government and media, and how suitable (or not) analogies to the 1930s were in that case.

It works both ways I guess. Comparisons with being a Nazi for wanting to control immigration numbers is pathetic yet often seen on SM discussion. On the other hand simply labelling anyone as a 'commie' because they genuinely believe that a socialist system would be fairer is also not helpful.

I think the issue for the wealthy types like Lineker is that they attract the 'champagne socialist' accusations of which sadly do have some substance. No one likes a Tory apparently but no one likes a vocal leftist who is in the top .5% of the Nation's wealthy and expects everyone else bar themselves to take action.

I'm certainly no fan of Lineker's opinions or behaviour. But I still don't see why he shouldn't be able to opine on things that are unrelated to his job - if his contract doesn't allow him to, he needs to negotiate a better contract.

 

[AlterEgo]

I ask again, how do you know that?

How do you *know* Lineker's editorial decisions regarding how MoTD covers issues like free school meals or racism in the police aren't being influenced by his apparently strongly held belief that the Home Secretary is not above dehumanizing human beings to achieve her political goals (or is enacting the will of Cabinet government)?

It’s (fairly obviously) an opinion, the same as yours. I think it’s fanciful to suggest what you’re suggesting. Lineker’s back presenting MOTD and everyone who got invested in it - and particularly those on the “Lineker should be censured” side - has expended valuable political capital on an issue far smaller than many made it out to be.

Not a hill to die on, in my view.