Any thoughts on Gary Lineker’s tweets?

[adc82140]

And massive Tory donor John Caudwell weighing in saying “as British taxpayers pay his salary, he should be promoting Britain not comparing the country to Nazi Germany. That’s unpatriotic and damaging to Britain's image!"

So, telling the truth shouldn’t be allowed unless it presents Britain in a favourable light. Utterly ridiculous

British taxpayers pay my salary as well (NHS), and they pay the salary of the men who empty my bins. And they pay the salary of the firefighter who lives a few doors down from me, and my mate who's a policeman. Should we all be instructed never to criticise the government at all? Where does Caudwell think we live, Russia?

As far as Gary Lineker is concerned, he's in a good position to hold his nerve. I bet Sky Sports have already been in touch with his agent.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is Lineker bigger than the programne, or even the BBC? There have been many instances of presenters and commentators being suspended after making controversial comments, but it didn't lead to their colleagues and half of the sports department walking off air. Taking Alan Shearer for example, he has a contract with the BBC, if he isn't on strike then he is in breach of contract by refusing to appear on the programme tonight.
Solidarity for a colleague over one weekend is one thing, but if they do the same again next week then they're at risk of having their contracts terminated.

As a related example, Glenn Hoddle was given his marching orders effectively by the Blair government for expressing his personal spiritual beliefs (which were bonkers of course). The England manager got the sack.

 

[jon0844]

Where does Caudwell think we live, Russia?

Remembering how he treated staff back in the Phones 4U days, I don't think he's ever thought very highly of workers - and will just make them fight it out to keep their job while he raked in the profits.

I am certain he'd be 100% behind changes to worker rights to remove things like sick pay, paid maternity/paternity leave, annual leave and even things like free healthcare.

As such, I am not sure I'd be siding with him for any opinions he airs on this matter.

 

[Falcon1200]

Regardless of my views on Liniker or the subject he tweeted about, as a believer in free speech I’m uncomfortable with him being silenced. I’d perhaps feel differently if he spouted his rubbish during MOTD for example, but this was his personal Twitter.

Except that Mr Lineker is not being silenced at all, given that as you say, his comments were not made on Match of the Day but Tweeted, which he is still perfectly free to continue doing.

Lineker is a martyr

Indeed, T-shirt manufacturers are replacing Che Guevera's face on their products with his....

 

[nw1]

The woke generation will always be against freedom of speech

or are they only against speech that contradicts opinions they hold? Would you look at that, another comparison to Germany in the 30's

The people against freedom of speech here are clearly the 36 Tory MPs who want a full investigation, including those extremely woke individuals Jonathan Gullis and Desmond Swayne.

It's people like Swayne who are only libertarian when it does not "contradict opinions they hold". Swayne was libertarian when it came to Covid restrictions at the end of 2021, but he certainly isn't being libertarian right now.

No, but this is a separate issue and shouldn't influence the situation with Lineker.

Yes, it should, because Sugar is self-evidently free to make political statements against Lynch, while Lineker is not free to make political statements against the government.

 

[jon0844]

Jonathan Gullis definitely comes over as a free speech advocate. As in he wants to be free to say whatever outrageous thoughts come into his head, but if anyone says something he disagrees with then 'off with their head'.

I wonder if 30p Lee has given his twopence yet? (Would that make him 28p Lee?)

 

[nw1]

Jonathan Gullis definitely comes over as a free speech advocate. As in he wants to be free to say whatever outrageous thoughts come into his head, but if anyone says something he disagrees with then 'off with their head'.

I wonder if 30p Lee has given his twopence yet? (Would that make him 28p Lee?)

So if he gives his twopence 15 times in total, I take it he will magically disappear in a puff of smoke. Can we think of 14 other things to wind him up about?

 

[ainsworth74]

If the Chair of the BBC can donate £400,000 to the Tory Party and facilitate a loan of £800,000 for a Tory Prime Minister why can't Gary Lineker call out the usage of concerning language by the UK Government?

 

[Busaholic]

So if he gives his twopence 15 times in total, I take it he will magically disappear in a puff of smoke. Can we think of 14 other things to wind him up about?

It's an unwritten rule that almost all those who say ''of course, he's entitled to his opinion'' actually mean the exact opposite. Among two I heard this afternoon, one on 'Any Answers?' on Radio Four could be heard frothing at the mouth while he intoned that, rather spoiling his cause by following it with ''so long as he doesn't attack the government''The other was the priceless Lady Hoey, a collector of lost causes if ever there was one (rabidly pro-Brexit and pro-Ulster and Democratic Unionists, a tad unusual for an ex-Labour MP,) who basically said the same thing but disguised in more articulate words.

Actually, 'being entitled to an opinion' is meaningless drivel: one may or may not have an opinion on anything and entitlement doesn't enter into it. Personally, I can take or leave Marmite without caring if I ever see a jar of it again, for instance, but if somebody offered me a Marmite sandwich tomorrow I'd accept it if I was hungry.

It's not a criticism of Lineker's tweet, and I doubt if it'd have made any difference to the result, but I feel it would have been better if he'd compared the German government of the 1920s i.e. under the Weimar Republic, because it was all the warnings unheeded then that led to the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s.

 

[Gloster]

I don’t think it has been mentioned before, but the BBC has also had to apologise for failing to challenge Nadine Dorries when she claimed on the World at One that Sue Gray was ‘a personal friend of Keir Starmer’ and that there may have been a political motivation in her findings of the lockdown investigation. The first is not true, unless a lot of people are chancing getting away with lying, and the second is, for a number of reasons, highly implausible.

They have also had the problem of Fiona Bruce’s comment on Question Time, after a panellist said that Boris Johnson’s father Stanley was a wife-beater, that it was ‘a one-off’. I suspect that she was trying to make clear that a statement that had been made to that effect was in fact an unproven allegation, but it came out rather badly.

What with Attenborough’s show, it has not been a good couple of days for the BBC, but I suspect that the overreaction to Lineker‘s tweet is by far the most damaging. I wonder how it is being reported in Moscow.

 

[dangie]

Listening to the conversations in the pub tonight, Gary Lineker has become the Voice of the People.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The Director General was asked if Lineker would have been suspended if he’d voiced support for the immigration bill and said it was a good idea.

The Director General said he wouldn’t be drawn on conjecture.

So that’s a “no” then.

It's not a criticism of Lineker's tweet, and I doubt if it'd have made any difference to the result, but I feel it would have been better if he'd compared the German government of the 1920s i.e. under the Weimar Republic, because it was all the warnings unheeded then that led to the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s.

I’d agree, but we didn’t see this level of discourse even in 1920s Germany.

He specifically said 1930s Germany. That means the increasingly vitriolic discourse that really started with the Reichstag fire, rose through the Nuremberg Laws and ended with Kristallnacht in 1938.

The Holocaust didn’t really start in earnest until 1940/1941. It was the culmination of a decade of hideous language. It didn’t appear from nowhere. That’s the point he was making. It’s one the Auschwitz museum are often keen to make too.

As you say, I don’t think any of this would have made any difference. The right, so vocally against cancel culture, were determined to shut him up. It’s not quite panned out as they expected.

 

[WatcherZero]

So many conservative donors, MP's and pundits coming out and giving statements like:
'Hes being held up like a Martyr, hes not a martyr he should be sacked for expressing his political views'

So oblivious to the irony of the their statements.

 

[Bevan Price]

I have not read any tweets by Mr Lineker or anyone else, but from reports I have seen, his language might have been a bit tactless, but he is entitled to express his opinions there, outside his BBC duties.

As for "the dispute", I think the BBC itself has shown political bias in caving in to tory protests. For many years, tory voices in Parliament and in newspapers have been upset that the BBC does not report as "gospel truth" everything that the tory party wants to do is "a good idea". (Some in the Labour Party have equivalent feelings, but they are under-represented in the newspaper industry.)

(However, in a separate topic, I do feel that Mr Lineker and other so-called celebrities are grossly overpaid. Also there is too much "waffle" in sports broadcasts, and we do not need several "pundits" before / after sports programmes. The BBC could save a lot of money that could usefully be diverted to provide more varied programmes, or keep BBC 4 on "live TV" rather than relegate it to "internet only". There must be many people who could present football TV almost as well as Mr Lineker, but cost a lot less.)

 

[87electric]

There must be many people who could present football TV almost as well as Mr Lineker, but cost a lot less.)

That sounds like beancounter language to me.

 

[WAB]

But as we all know what happened in Germany in the 1930s became progressively ever more evil leading to the Holocaust, therefore any comparison between the UK now and Germany then is bound to raise concerns.

Of course it should raise concerns. I am concerned about the direction of travel. And you cannot deny the parallels...

 

[brad465]

The BBC could be in trouble for breaking accessibility rules due to no commentary/audio description:

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1634699132353892353

BREAKING: The BBC may have BROKEN its own accessibility rules by not providing audio description (i.e. commentary) for blind licence fee payers on MOTD

 

[GusB]

That sounds like beancounter language to me.

I welcome beancounter language when I'm required by law to fund the BBC while having little to no say on how the organisation is actually run. If it was a regular business and I owned shares in it, I'd be entitled to have a vote on matters such as appointing the chairman.

For the record, I'm with Lineker on this matter. This is about political interference in public broadcasting and it really doesn't matter if you have a left- or right-leaning perspective, the government of the day should not be trying to silence dissenting voices. You cannot accuse people of being impartial when those at the very top of the BBC are there because a) they've been politically appointed and b) when they've got substantial links to the party that's in power!

If Gary Lineker is forced to step down permanently, so be it. The chairman of the BBC and the director general should also go, along with any other senior figures who have links to the ruling party.

 

[DustyBin]

Listening to the conversations in the pub tonight, Gary Lineker has become the Voice of the People.

Listening to the conversations in the pub I visited tonight, I completely disagree! Gary Lineker is the voice of some people, which is nothing new.

This rather misses the point though. It’s a freedom of speech issue, which is why I find myself defending a bloke I actually can’t stand……

 

[OuterDistant]

I doubt that my political views align with those of Gary Lineker. And while I do admire him quite a bit, I'm really enjoying the fact that one small action of his has unleashed a storm of what appears to be double standards and hypocrisy.

 

[D365]

And massive Tory donor John Caudwell weighing in saying “as British taxpayers pay his salary, he should be promoting Britain not comparing the country to Nazi Germany. That’s unpatriotic and damaging to Britain's image!"

Promoting Britain? I think our leadership is doing a fine enough job as it is.

British taxpayers pay my salary as well (NHS), and they pay the salary of the men who empty my bins. And they pay the salary of the firefighter who lives a few doors down from me, and my mate who's a policeman. Should we all be instructed never to criticise the government at all? Where does Caudwell think we live, Russia?

As far as Gary Lineker is concerned, he's in a good position to hold his nerve. I bet Sky Sports have already been in touch with his agent.

As an employee of a contractor of a contractor of a government-owned company, where does that leave me

 

[PMH]

And massive Tory donor John Caudwell weighing in saying “as British taxpayers pay his salary, he should be promoting Britain not comparing the country to Nazi Germany. That’s unpatriotic and damaging to Britain's image!"

So, telling the truth shouldn’t be allowed unless it presents Britain in a favourable light. Utterly ridiculous

Caudwell must have something about him to have amassed such a fortune, but he seems a bit dim. That he's a boorish right-wing bore is a given, but every intervention from him is oversimplified, man-down-the-pub jingoistic guff.

 

[nw1]

If the Chair of the BBC can donate £400,000 to the Tory Party and facilitate a loan of £800,000 for a Tory Prime Minister why can't Gary Lineker call out the usage of concerning language by the UK Government?

Because he's expressing an opinion contrary to that of the Government. You can't do that if you're on TV. End of.

Listening to the conversations in the pub I visited tonight, I completely disagree! Gary Lineker is the voice of some people, which is nothing new.

This rather misses the point though. It’s a freedom of speech issue, which is why I find myself defending a bloke I actually can’t stand……

It's a bit like the inverse of that case which came up on another thread, where some railway employees at some station were indulging in a bit of (IMO) moronic reactionary right-wing nonsense amongst themselves.

There was a question of whether they should be reported by a third-party, and potentially sacked, for doing this. I would say no (even though I considered their views abhorrent), because they were chatting amongst themselves, rather than directly insulting a specific member of the public who was present at the time.

It's much more dangerous when we have a home secretary who has such reactionary right-wing views, and a weak prime minister who is seemingly afraid of her, and her sort, within the Tory Party. Who really cares if some random railway employee does?

 

[jfollows]

I have not read any tweets by Mr Lineker or anyone else, but from reports I have seen, his language might have been a bit tactless, but he is entitled to express his opinions there, outside his BBC duties.

As for "the dispute", I think the BBC itself has shown political bias in caving in to tory protests. For many years, tory voices in Parliament and in newspapers have been upset that the BBC does not report as "gospel truth" everything that the tory party wants to do is "a good idea". (Some in the Labour Party have equivalent feelings, but they are under-represented in the newspaper industry.)

(However, in a separate topic, I do feel that Mr Lineker and other so-called celebrities are grossly overpaid. Also there is too much "waffle" in sports broadcasts, and we do not need several "pundits" before / after sports programmes. The BBC could save a lot of money that could usefully be diverted to provide more varied programmes, or keep BBC 4 on "live TV" rather than relegate it to "internet only". There must be many people who could present football TV almost as well as Mr Lineker, but cost a lot less.)

This also represents my opinions pretty well; I don't care for social media but I'm happy to ignore what people say using it, and it's attributed with far more importance than it really deserves, but that's today's world. I've no detailed understanding of what he said but I get the feeling that he's expressed things with greater clarity than anyone in government ever has.
The BBC should terminate his contract if he's in breach of the conditions in it, otherwise it should do nothing. At the moment it seems to have incompetently managed to do the worst of all things, and gives an appearance of doing the government's bidding as a result.
If the BBC chooses to employ a major presenter as an independent contractor rather than an employee, there are ramifications which seem not to have been properly thought through. It either needs to modify its contracts to bring clarity or stop using them.
I would not be unhappy to see the departure of people responsible for this mess from the BBC.

 

[nw1]

I welcome beancounter language when I'm required by law to fund the BBC while having little to no say on how the organisation is actually run. If it was a regular business and I owned shares in it, I'd be entitled to have a vote on matters such as appointing the chairman.

Indeed. Let's have a licence-payers vote as to whether to kick Sharp out or not. Seriously.

 

[Intercity110]

he can’t actually be sacked, as he works for his own limited company for the bbc for tax reasons

 

[jfollows]

Philip Hammond appears to be comparing Lineker with a "senior civil servant" and that it's unacceptable for either of them to make public comments - but I think he's wrong, the comparison is specious, because Lineker isn't an employee of the BBC whereas a civil servant is an employee of the Crown (or something). It's not the same thing. I resigned from (government) employment in 2015 and set myself up as self-employed in part because I didn't agree with the way my organisation was being run, but knew that as an employee my recourse was to get promoted to run it myself and not to make public criticisms of my bosses.

 

[MotCO]

This also represents my opinions pretty well; I don't care for social media but I'm happy to ignore what people say using it, and it's attributed with far more importance than it really deserves, but that's today's world. I've no detailed understanding of what he said but I get the feeling that he's expressed things with greater clarity than anyone in government ever has.
The BBC should terminate his contract if he's in breach of the conditions in it, otherwise it should do nothing. At the moment it seems to have incompetently managed to do the worst of all things, and gives an appearance of doing the government's bidding as a result.
If the BBC chooses to employ a major presenter as an independent contractor rather than an employee, there are ramifications which seem not to have been properly thought through. It either needs to modify its contracts to bring clarity or stop using them.
I would not be unhappy to see the departure of people responsible for this mess from the BBC.

This pretty much sums up my feelings as well. The issue is not one of free speech - Gary Lineker can say what he likes as an individual as indeed I can, even if I agree or disagree with him. The issue is whether or not he broke his contract (is he an employee or freelancer? - that's for the Courts to decide) by speaking out despite being warned about it previously. As Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The other issue is that he is a senior presenter on the BBC, and therefore people are aware of him and as a result he has presumably got thousands of Twitter followers. If he was Joe Bloggs working in the stationery department in the BBC and tweeted the same remark, no one would take any notice.

 

[WizCastro197]

he can’t actually be sacked, as he works for his own limited company for the bbc for tax reasons

He can be asked never to return though, which is effectively a sacking really.

 

[nw1]

Philip Hammond appears to be comparing Lineker with a "senior civil servant" and that it's unacceptable for either of them to make public comments - but I think he's wrong, the comparison is specious, because Lineker isn't an employee of the BBC whereas a civil servant is an employee of the Crown (or something). It's not the same thing. I resigned from (government) employment in 2015 and set myself up as self-employed in part because I didn't agree with the way my organisation was being run, but knew that as an employee my recourse was to get promoted to run it myself and not to make public criticisms of my bosses.

Disappointing to hear that from Phillip Hammond, who despite being dissociated from the Johnson government of 2019, still appears to be towing the Tory party-line. Does he have his eye on a comeback for the next election, I wonder?