Any thoughts on Gary Lineker’s tweets?

[adc82140]

Strikes me a bit like if a Prime Minister didn't know or was confused by the laws he/she had made (!!).

Although to be fair I don't think the current BBC Director General actually has made these "rules"!!

After this kerfuffle perhaps it'll be a good time to clarify the rules. But they run the risk of losing quality presenters in favour of yes men and women. The likes of Gary Lineker and Alan Sugar would be snapped up by other broadcasters in an instant, without all this baggage.

Where would they stop? Claudia Winkleman advertises haircare products. Would they see that as not being balanced?

 

[dosxuk]

The core issues are clear and don't justify this level of water muddying.

I agree, "he once talked about Qatar, that makes him a news presenter" is just silly.

1. If Gary Lineker was a BBC staff member, has he broken the rules? See Guardian piece and refute my analysis with specifics

Which is clearly answered by the fact that we're not talking about breech of contract. Even the BBC don't believe he has broken the terms set out in his contract.

2. If Gary Lineker's status as a freelancer is the only thing that gets him off the book regarding 1., explain why that isn't an absolute outrage? Don't talk about holiday pay, address the reasons why those rules exist in the first place.

It's not only his status as a freelancer, it's that the rules are not as clear cut as you want them to be, as admitted by the Director General. Freelancers paid to appear because of who they are, rather than what they do, are not going to held to the same rules as someone who is an employee in a role that can be readily replaced. Freelancers who work for multiple employers can not be held to the same rules as all of their employers set on their employees.

I hope that is simple enough for you.

 

[Gloster]

According to the London Economic the BBC decided to leave him off Match of the Day ‘after he refused to make an apologetic statement on the show regarding his comments’. IF this is true, and it must be said that the item contains at least one error (and the site is never at its best on a Sunday), then that is an extraordinary demand by the BBC. It is demanding that he make what is, in effect, a political statement on a sports show about something that occurred outside of the BBC’s jurisdiction. I will again underline that this has come from only one source.

 

[Ant1966]

Only after you explain how it benefits Lineker.

If Sugar is in breach, so is Lineker.

If he is not in breach, what are you complaining about.

And as a bonus prize, please offer an opinion on who would be more likely to be able to carve out a contractual exception that allows a representative of the BBC in a non-political role to retain their political free speech, a Member of the Lords and former government czar whose political allegiance is well known, or an ex footballer whose allegiances are not?

"Only after you explain how it benefits Lineker."
Not sure what that's got to do with my question? I don't think this whole sorry saga benefits anyone, except perhaps the Government, as they would rather we talked about this, as opposed to the state of the NHS, the Economy, cost of living, climate change, the issues with housing, social care, the pensions/demographic timebomb, preparing for the next pandemic etc.

"If Sugar is in breach, so is Lineker.
If he is not in breach, what are you complaining about."
That's exactly my point. Either both are in breach, or neither.

"And as a bonus prize, please offer an opinion on who would be more likely to be able to carve out a contractual exception that allows a representative of the BBC in a non-political role to retain their political free speech, a Member of the Lords and former government czar whose political allegiance is well known, or an ex footballer whose allegiances are not?"
I'll ignore the slightly patronising tone ('bonus prize'). That is highly speculative, and probably impossible to prove one way or the other. Personally I suspect neither have such a clause, as until fairly recently it wouldn't have been deemed necessary; there was a general acceptance on all sides that tweets on political matters by non 'news' presenters were OK. Something seems to have changed. I, and many others, strongly suspect that this change is driven by the Government, a suspicion that is hardly helped by the fact that both the Chair and the DG of the BBC are now Tories. This concerns me, a great deal. I suspect you will have a different view, and we are unlikely to change each others minds, so I am going to leave it at that
(one of the best things about this forum is that people tend to be respectful of each others views)

 

[dangie]

Many are saying that as Gary Lineker is ‘employed’ by the BBC he shouldn’t air his political views publicly. But how about Ian Hislop & Paul Merton on ‘Have I got News for You’? They constantly give their own views about politics & politicians. The programme couldn’t survive without them. They are surely employed by the BBC.

No they aren't, BBC don't make the show.

Just Googled it. The programme is made made by Hat Trick Productions for the BBC. However I can’t see that’s much different than Gary Lineker being freelance and working for the BBC. If the panelist’s on HIGNFY can say and get away with their political comments, why can’t Lineker?

Apart from the fact that HIGNFY is a popular programme with good viewing figures. The BBC aren’t going to censure that.

 

[al78]

Some great YouTube videos on this:

 

[Fleetmaster]

Just a question, I've seen sports people on "Question Time" in the pass, not long ago Seb Vettel (Formula 1) was on. If Lineker had been invited to be a panellist, maybe because there was a current discussion about funding women's football, building on school playing fields or holding the World Cup in Qatar, he'd be there to offer his point of view for/against the government etc. Then suppose they moved on to a question about the "boats"; and he offered an opinion as he did on twitter, which panellists are expected to do.

Would have there been all this fall-out?? If not, what's the difference??

Jermaine Jenas (ex footballer, MotD pundit) has been on QT. No controversy afaik.

Why? Most likely because, despite having well known opinions on matters like racism in the police, he probably didn't express them in the overtly biased and very offensive way that Lineker tweeted his views on migrant policy.

The rules specifically do not exist to prevent people giving an opinion, especially not in situations where opinion is expected to be given. The expectation of being mindful of your BBC role, still exists.

The question therefore is, if Lineker ever had the guts to go on QT, would he be truthful to himself and his public but personal platform, or would he temper his views in deference to the fact he is not on Twitter, but a BBC show where serious political debate is the goal.

But this is Lineker. He has his opinions, but he clearly avoids any situations that might put him in a bind, if he can help it. Jenas went onto QT in the full expectation that the panel, for reasons of impartiality, might include people who will have different perspectives, and if he didn't like them but couldn't defend his own, tough noogie.

 

[adc82140]

The question therefore is, if Lineker ever had the guts to go on QT, would he be truthful to himself and his public but personal platform, or would he temper his views in deference to the fact he is not on Twitter, but a BBC show where serious political debate is the goal.

It's fairly obvious that Lineker has said something you disagree with, so therefore shouldn't, in your opinion, be allowed to say it. I asked earlier if you were disgusted by Alan Sugar's Twitter comments about Mick Lynch, Alan Sugar being a similar BBC freelancer to Gary Lineker. You chose not to answer so far.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Jermaine Jenas (ex footballer, MotD pundit) has been on QT. No controversy afaik.

Why? Most likely because, despite having well known opinions on matters like racism in the police, he probably didn't express them in the overtly biased and very offensive way that Lineker tweeted his views on migrant policy.

The rules specifically do not exist to prevent people giving an opinion, especially not in situations where opinion is expected to be given. The expectation of being mindful of your BBC role, still exists.

The question therefore is, if Lineker ever had the guts to go on QT, would he be truthful to himself and his public but personal platform, or would he temper his views in deference to the fact he is not on Twitter, but a BBC show where serious political debate is the goal.

But this is Lineker. He has his opinions, but he clearly avoids any situations that might put him in a bind, if he can help it. Jenas went onto QT in the full expectation that the panel, for reasons of impartiality, might include people who will have different perspectives, and if he didn't like them but couldn't defend his own, tough noogie.

What has Lineker said that is offensive?

 

[Fleetmaster]

I agree, "he once talked about Qatar, that makes him a news presenter" is just silly.

Great. Because I never said it. Don't misquote people.

Which is clearly answered by the fact that we're not talking about breech of contract. Even the BBC don't believe he has broken the terms set out in his contract.

Source? Call it what you like, I'm satisfied you do at least seem to appreciate that If he were an employee, he could have been sanctioned.

It's not only his status as a freelancer, it's that the rules are not as clear cut as you want them to be, as admitted by the Director General. Freelancers paid to appear because of who they are, rather than what they do, are not going to held to the same rules as someone who is an employee in a role that can be readily replaced. Freelancers who work for multiple employers can not be held to the same rules as all of their employers set on their employees.

I hope that is simple enough for you.

I like simple questions. They expose false arguments.

Did the BBC hire Lineker as a freelancer not an employee because they thought he should be subject to a different standard regarding impartiality than, say, the host of QI?

You've just cited your own post.

The Director General has admitted there is no clear policy for non news staff or freelancers. I think he'd be the one to know.

Which cited The Guardian. Do you think The Guardian erred in not including this information about the lack of clarity? If it is even true of course.

Is it true?

there was a general acceptance on all sides that tweets on political matters by non 'news' presenters were OK. Something seems to have changed.

Indeed it has! That's what seems to have escaped people's notice. Under the old rules, the BBC had problems with high profile stars thinking that simply because they weren't banned from having any political opinions at all, because they weren't news/politics, they clearly thought their fame or commercial value to the BBC meant that the lesser requirement that everyone on the BBC should be mindful of its impartiality rules (i.e., have an opinion, just be careful), didn't apply to them.

So as the Guardian helpfully explained, an additional expectation was added for high profile stars. It is informally known as the Lineker clause because it seems likely be was who they had in mind when drafting it.

Whatever the rights and wrongs, the existence of the clause has obviously been communicated to Lineker in the past, and he had every opportunity to take his freelance talent elsewhere if it didn't sit right with him. He did not.

He wants to have his cake and eat it.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Jermaine Jenas (ex footballer, MotD pundit) has been on QT. No controversy afaik.

Why? Most likely because, despite having well known opinions on matters like racism in the police, he probably didn't express them in the overtly biased and very offensive way that Lineker tweeted his views on migrant policy.

You’ve got a “most likely” and a “probably” doing a lot of heavy lifting in there. Fact is, you don’t know

 

[Fleetmaster]

What has Lineker said that is offensive?

"There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. 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"

You’ve got a “most likely” and a “probably” doing a lot of heavy lifting in there. Fact is, you don’t know

I do know, with the strength that words like "most likely" and " probably" convey. Certainty would require watching the show and a search of the newspapers. I don't care that much.

 

[SuspectUsual]

But I can easily check. I won't, because I know I am probably right. Feel free to prove otherwise

Or perhaps it’s because Jermaine Jenas is the most nondescript character, moulded into a bland BBC presenter with no discernible personality of his own, who has splinters in his backside after all the time he spends sitting on the fence.

 

[Fleetmaster]

Or perhaps it’s because Jermaine Jenas is the most nondescript character, moulded into a bland BBC presenter with no discernible personality of his own, who has splinters in his backside after all the time he spends sitting on the fence.

Well I can at least be certain that your "perhaps" is better read as " didn't know and didn't care to know".

‘I was 10 when it first happened’: Jermaine Jenas on why stop-and-search is failing black children

The TV presenter and former footballer found himself stopped by the police from childhood, simply for being black. A new documentary sees him meets young people harmed by such prejudice

www.theguardian.com

 

[Busaholic]

It used to be so easy to have a career in television news and then go on to be a Tory politician, no questions asked! Take Chris Chataway, a moderately successful athlete in the days of Roger Bannister and Chris Brasher who decided on a career in TV on leaving Oxford and went on to becoming ITN's first newsreader alongside Robin Day, who identified as a Liberal. A little later, he transferred to BBC and became a reporter on Panorama so when he became the Conservative candidate for the Lewisham North constituency in 1959 and won it back from Labour the congratulatory newspapers were full of his charm and 'boyish good looks' which, combined with the television recognition, had won him the seat. It's also not in any immediately accessible internet search, but I swear he appeared in Tory party political broadcasts too ( I was a Lewisham secondary school boy from 1959 and very interested in local politics.)

Such rank hypocrisy now from the Tories and their fellow travellers.

 

[Peterthegreat]

"There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. 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"


I do know, with the strength that words like "most likely" and " probably" convey. Certainty would require watching the show and a search of the newspapers. I don't care that much.

Why is this offensive? We do take far fewer refugees than other major European countries and the language used in some quarters IS similar to that used in 1930s Germany.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Well I can at least be certain that your "perhaps" is better read as " didn't know and didn't care to know".

Sorry, I thought we were discussing how they put their arguments, not whether they had points they wished to make.

And I just don’t see how Lineker has said anything offensive. You might not like his point of view, but it’s not offensive

 

[nw1]

"Hello Mick Lynch are you happy with yourself bringing the country and ordinary people down on their knees over Xmas. You don't fool me waiting for the employers to come to table. You love the publicity. Your members would like to earn what you get. Why don't you waive your salary" Dec 22
Lord Alan Sugar 5.2M Twitter followers. Current presenter of very well known BBC show (not news/current affairs related).

"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?" Mar 23
Gary Lineker 8.8M Twitter followers. Current presenter of very well known BBC show (not news/current affairs related).

Please explain the difference?

Sugar's tweet is right wing, Lineker's is anti-right-wing. Therein lies the difference. In the eyes of some, at least.

I don't think much of Sugar's nonsense, but (as I said above) I think he too should be able to say whatever he likes on Twitter. Unlike certain right-wingers who appear to want to silence Lineker.

 

[GS250]

By the way what's stopping our Gary from starting a charity? Maybe use his wealth, influence, compassion and connections to actually help those who he believes need it?

Until then, he's no Muhatma Gandhi...

It was an emotional outburst. Also he didn't compare it to the Nazis directly. He just said that there were some similarities to 1930s Germany before real Nazism kicked in. Different thing entirely.

So he should have retracted it then. We've all said and done things in the heat of the moment?

Most of us have had the decency to take it back?

 

[Gloster]

By the way what's stopping our Gary from starting a charity? Maybe use his wealth, influence, compassion and connections to actually help those who he believes need it?

He has taken refugees into his home at least once.

 

[alex397]

So he should have retracted it then. We've all said and done things in the heat of the moment?

Most of us have had the decency to take it back?

Except I don’t think he said this ‘in the heat of the moment’. It seemed to me that he chose his words carefully before tweeting it. He carefully wrote it so it wasn’t a direct comparison with the Nazis - he simply compared the language used.

If he retracts it, it would be like saying he doesn’t really believe in what he said. While people may understandably disagree with what he said, I think it was a fair comment. I don’t think it was as extreme as some have made out (in my opinion).

 

[87electric]

Except I don’t think he said this ‘in the heat of the moment’. It seemed to me that he chose his words carefully before tweeting it. He carefully wrote it so it wasn’t a direct comparison with the Nazis - he simply compared the language used.

If he retracts it, it would be like saying he doesn’t really believe in what he said. While people may understandably disagree with what he said, I think it was a fair comment. I don’t think it was as extreme as some have made out (in my opinion).

They are very carefully chosen words. This is his style. It's amazing how people interpret them how they do.

 

[Howardh]

By the way what's stopping our Gary from starting a charity? Maybe use his wealth, influence, compassion and connections to actually help those who he believes need it?

Until then, he's no Muhatma Gandhi...



So he should have retracted it then. We've all said and done things in the heat of the moment?

Most of us have had the decency to take it back?

Nothing to take back.

 

[Fleetmaster]

Sorry, I thought we were discussing how they put their arguments, not whether they had points they wished to make.

And I just don’t see how Lineker has said anything offensive. You might not like his point of view, but it’s not offensive

And yet a Jewish man who lived through that period and escaped to Britain as a refugee said Lineker "went too far" with that comparison.

Why is this offensive? We do take far fewer refugees than other major European countries and the language used in some quarters IS similar to that used in 1930s Germany.

The head of the Holocaust Educational Trust disagrees, calling it a disservice to the truth of the past.

This is the problem right here. The people not seeing the offence are those who clearly lack the ability to see a situation from all sides and consider whether they are being fair and impartial before they comment, putting themselves in the embarrassing situation of being in dispute not with their Tory enemies, but the people they wrongly assumed they were speaking on behalf of.

Lineker clearly knows nothing about what happened in 1930s Germany, and he perhaps rather worryingly based on this Tweet thinks it was seen as a bad time because the Nazis were saying mean stuff about people they disliked, just like these nasty Tories are doing now. Jesus Christ. It is ironically deeply offensive for its basic lack of any detectable empathy for the people who heard those speeches and know exactly what was happening alongside them.

This is what is so stupid. If as some people here seem to think, that some time in the next decade, the Sunak government, having seized perpetual power by outmanouvering King Charles, will be sending out paramilitary police to murder Kier Starmer in his bed, and his whole family too, and Boris Johnson and Lizz Truss, then we are all just so screwed, and maybe we do need to start a programme of mandatory sterilisation of the mentally defective (another example of what the Nazis were actually up to in the 30s).

Sugar's tweet is right wing, Lineker's is anti-right-wing. Therein lies the difference. In the eyes of some, at least.

I don't think much of Sugar's nonsense, but (as I said above) I think he too should be able to say whatever he likes on Twitter. Unlike certain right-wingers who appear to want to silence Lineker.

Lord Sugar of course has suffered a campaign of anti-Semitic harassment by some fool whose language was lifted straight out of Mein Kampf. We can't say for sure that he was a Labour party activist, but with their recent history, we can't say he wasn't either.

The irony, eh? I bet nobody invoking in his name in here had any clue about that. Probably blows their mind that a Jew can also be a Tory. Probably always assumed the Jews would naturally be left wing. Surprisingly to them I guess, and it is the same in the US with Cubans in Florida, people who are genuine refugees who are granted asylum by a compassionate host country, then go on to be much more strident in the protection of that country's right to control its own borders than the natives, to make sure this generosity is not abused (lest it lead to an end to legal asylum).

 

[WatcherZero]

Lord Sugar was a member of the Labour party and one of its largest donors from 1997-2015 when he quit over the election of Corbyn as 'too left wing', he sits as a Crossbench rather than Conservative Peer.
Hes hardly a tory.

 

[Fleetmaster]

he didn't compare it to the Nazis directly. He just said that there were some similarities to 1930s Germany before real Nazism kicked in. Different thing entirely.

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!

Yes, I can hear it already, all around us, in the language of our Ministers of State.

Rishi for Supreme Leader 2024!

Ban the Labour Party!

Ban Free Speech!

So reminiscent of 1930s Germany.

Jesus H. Mary and Joseph.

Unsurprisingly, Lineker has reportedly admitted he went too far, but equally unsurprisingly, it appears he's keeping that thought to himself, presumably as a negotiating tactic to engineer the least damaging return to MoTD (he must have heard the news that ratings actually went up despite the dramatically shorter football only nature of the broadcast).

It's his defenders I feel sorry for. He's taken you all for absolute mugs.

 

[New York Giant]

Regardless of whether the MOTD team are freelance or payroll, we as the licence payer bankroll a good chunk of their privaledged lives. The hangers-on, that stood down as a show of support for Lineker, should observe the increased viewing figures and thank their lucky stars if they are inserted back in to the programme like nothing happened. Alan Shearer, Alex Scott (who has previous when it comes to upsetting the BBC) and the like add little to the show at the best of times, being paid handsomely for telling the knowledgable football fan what they can see for themselves.

The arrogance in the way they shunned the viewer hopefully sees the BBC look elsewhere for pundits who hopefully don't consume as much of our licence fees.

This was Lineker's fight. He's big, rich and famous enough to take the reprecussions on the chin himself.

 

[alex397]

And yet a Jewish man who lived through that period and escaped to Britain as a refugee said Lineker "went too far" with that comparison.

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.

Lineker clearly knows nothing about what happened in 1930s Germany, and he perhaps rather worryingly based on this Tweet thinks it was seen as a bad time because the Nazis were saying mean stuff about people they disliked, just like these nasty Tories are doing now. Jesus Christ. It is ironically deeply offensive for its basic lack of any detectable empathy for the people who heard those speeches and know exactly what was happening alongside them.

This is what is so stupid. If as some people here seem to think, that some time in the next decade, the Sunak government, having seized perpetual power by outmanouvering King Charles, will be sending out paramilitary police to murder Kier Starmer in his bed, and his whole family too, and Boris Johnson and Lizz Truss, then we are all just so screwed, and maybe we do need to start a programme of mandatory sterilisation of the mentally defective (another example of what the Nazis were actually up to in the 30s).

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.

 

[nlogax]

The hangers-on, that stood down as a show of support for Lineker, should observe the increased viewing figures and thank their lucky stars if they are inserted back in to the programme like nothing happened

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.

 

[AlterEgo]

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.