Gary Lineker

[Welly Cobb]

1. When was Tim Davie a Tory MP?

I stand corrected, he was a councillor not an MP. But I don't think it undermines the overall point.

2. Lineker has repeatedly breached the Impartiality clause of his contract. He isn't "leftie" unless avoiding, possibly evading your taxes is a leftie trait.

I was sarcastically calling out Davies leftie bias, the one that certain Barclay owned newspaper obsess about. I never meant to say Linekar was a leftie, though the sentence structure was unclear, so I can see how it would read that way.

[BackOfTheNet]

I struggle a little reconciling my thoughts over all this. The problem with the overall issue at the heart of the matter is it's both emotive and ideologically divisive. It gets jumped on by both the bleeding hearts on the left saying "let them all in" and the racists on the right saying "send them all back", which makes it difficult to have a sensible debate without getting labelled as one or the other when you try to address what are,  ultimately, valid points from either side of the divide.

The reality is it's a far more nuanced issue than than Gary=right vs Government=wrong though.

Let me have a go at laying out my fairly muddled thoughts on the matter...

Firstly, I see no issue with people coming here who are fleeing hazardous situations in their home country., the Ukrainians, the Syrians, the Afghans who were left in the mire when we pulled out. There's a moral imperative here and I don't think many on either side of the debate would disagree with that, beyond the knuckle draggers on the far right.

Equally, I've no objection to controlled immigration through recognised channels; if you apply for and are granted the relevant permits and permissions then great, welcome aboard.

Where I hit a greyer area though is with economic migrancy. A lot of the people arriving on boats are those that have passed through multiple "safe" countries on their way here but keep going until they reach Britain. I think there are a couple of main reasons for this.

One is language. English is taught all over the globe so if you are going to uproot your family and head to a different country then it makes sense to choose one where you probably know bits and pieces of the language even if you don't really speak it.

The second is the misconception of what you will be given when you get here. This is shared by both those coming here and by a lot of those who have always lived here. My wife works in the community for the NHS and frequently works with those that have arrived through unofficial channels (some of whom have been trafficked) and from the stories she tells me I can tell you a lot of these poor buggers have nothing. They do generally get a roof of some description over their head though, and I guess for some that makes the risk of getting here worthwhile.

That last paragraph raised twò other considerations- trafficking and risk. A lot of people arriving on small boats are coming due to the activities of criminal gangs. Doing nothing encourages this activity. Whether they fail into this category or not,  those arriving on small boats are placing themselves at tremendous risk. Yes, that's their choice but so is jumping off tall buildings and we put up fences to stop people doing that, don't we?

Then there's the question of hard-nosed pragmatism. We're a small country in a time of economic hardship (and yes,  I know that's relative). There has to be a limit to the number of people we can afford to accommodate, even if we're talking indirectly through the provision of medical care etc. If we let everyone in who pitches up on a boat doesn't that make a mockery of the formal immigration system?

So how should controls be enforced? Packing people off to Rwanda or wherever probably would be a deterrent, but what about the poor sods who get sent there as a means of creating that deterrent? What are they, collateral?

Then there's what Gary did. It's a difficult situation because on the one hand he represents an organisation that supposedly remains impartial but on the other he should be entitled to free speech. It's a bit like the debate we've had on here about what Trust board members should or shouldn't say in a personal capacity, but I wouldn't dream of saying they shouldn't be able to air their views on completely unrelated topics like this. In Lineker's case, it's ultimately probably less about the rights and wrongs of what he said and more about whatever it says in the terms of his contract.

So there you have it. Lots of pontificating, an acknowledgement that something probably needs to be done about the current situation and no real answers. Just like the government....

[Peter Frost]

Good thoughtful post BON

I found myself in a bit of a dilemma re one point you raised (and it illustrate a bias we all suffer from)  - I've said a number of times the Trust Board and Advisers need to be very careful about posting on social media - full disclosure I tended to disagree with what they said and in particular how they said. Now on Gary Lineker I tend to agree with what he says but (and here is where the bias comes in) I might argue it's different but in reality it probably isn't particularly with so much focus on the impartiality of the BBC.

Even the most ardent Brexiteer surely has to admit the situation has got worse since that decision - no return agreement, little or no offshore asylum processing facility and the ridiculous assertion the French should enforce our border control on their borders.

People should also be aware globally this problem is going to get worse (careful I'm actually agreeing with the odious Home Secretary here) - global instability due to political and environmental issues is going to increase migration patterns massively - to solve it requires a balance of tough decisions, humanity and most important grown up cooperation between western countries - something that sadly went significant backwards in recent years

[Manwork04]

Let’s face it Lineker isn’t the brightest lamp in the street, he thinks he can write whatever he wants in his personal twitter account and this has nothing to do with his work, he has been warned on numerous occasions that this isn’t the case.
The same rule applies to Jezza Clarkson, with his wonderful article on Harry Hewit, he has been sacked from Who Wants to be a Millionaire, free speech is one thing but you have to face the consequences.
Now Match of the Day is a poison chalice because the left wing swamp that is twitter will vilify anybody who appears on the show. Personally I thinks it’s far better without so called experts on £1.5m of taxpayers money as a salary.

[guest3574]

Left Wing Swamp? Really? Haters, racists, conspiracy peddlers, anti vaxxers had their platform taken from them by Twitter's previous ownership...... They're all back now and still peddling the hate and lies!

[DrillingCobbler]

Clarkson is a good example on the flip side...

BBC got rid of him. Of course that was absolutely welcomed by the Twitter brigade. They absolutely loathe free speech when its right wing, however when its left wing, another matter!

As for Lineker/BBC. BBC are handling it so badly, I'm finding it rather amusing. Digging a deeper and deeper hole. BackOfTheNet sums all up perfectly for me, sadly on twitter there is no middle ground to discuss it because every twitter poll suggested Corbyn would win 90% of the seats prior to the last general election. It may as well be a forum directly linked up the Guardian.

What the whole episode demonstrates to me is that the BBC model is well and truly old school and not fit for purpose in modern day society. We are forced to pay a fee every month, in return for no advertising. I've felt for a number of years it needs to stand on its own two feet and do its own thing. Both sides of the political spectrum constantly accuse it of impartiality, its got to the point that they cant employ anyone with any strong opinions without upsetting the political fringes. 

I like Lineker. Leicester City connections and all that. I like his presenting style, I think he's one of the very best presenters on TV. Superbly complimented by Ian Wright and Alan Shearer plus of course Alex Scott. This all in spite of him clearly being a 'champagne socialist', of whom I have many mates who fall into that particular category! Personally I think he'd be much better putting himself on the open market and working for another media outlet. The BBC is rapidly becoming a dinosaur and has little future as a national broadcaster in its current set up.

[BackOfTheNet]

I read a good point earlier (on the BBC website, actually!)

They said what would happen if a quiz show presenter or an actor employed by the BBC were to make a political statement? Would they be similarly sanctioned?Or, more intriguingly, a comedian?

I wonder where Have I Got News For You will be if this has set a precedent?

[guest3574]

Most of the Beebs sports programmes have vanished today, Match of the Day will go ahead with no presenter or pundits

[BackOfTheNet]

Most of the Beebs sports programmes have vanished today, Match of the Day will go ahead with no presenter or pundits

In fairness, that actually sounds better than what they normally do...

[CobblerForever]

Clarkson is a good example on the flip side...

BBC got rid of him. Of course that was absolutely welcomed by the Twitter brigade. They absolutely loathe free speech when its right wing, however when its left wing, another matter!

As for Lineker/BBC. BBC are handling it so badly, I'm finding it rather amusing. Digging a deeper and deeper hole. BackOfTheNet sums all up perfectly for me, sadly on twitter there is no middle ground to discuss it because every twitter poll suggested Corbyn would win 90% of the seats prior to the last general election. It may as well be a forum directly linked up the Guardian.

What the whole episode demonstrates to me is that the BBC model is well and truly old school and not fit for purpose in modern day society. We are forced to pay a fee every month, in return for no advertising. I've felt for a number of years it needs to stand on its own two feet and do its own thing. Both sides of the political spectrum constantly accuse it of impartiality, its got to the point that they cant employ anyone with any strong opinions without upsetting the political fringes. 

I like Lineker. Leicester City connections and all that. I like his presenting style, I think he's one of the very best presenters on TV. Superbly complimented by Ian Wright and Alan Shearer plus of course Alex Scott. This all in spite of him clearly being a 'champagne socialist', of whom I have many mates who fall into that particular category! Personally I think he'd be much better putting himself on the open market and working for another media outlet. The BBC is rapidly becoming a dinosaur and has little future as a national broadcaster in its current set up.

So much sense there. My big beef with these characters is the size of their pay packets (which is not their fault). Public service broadcasting should be all about quality, cost effective broadcasting for the masses engaging all legal political opinions. Not personality based and lazy development of staff and talent. If their talent need big money, they can fight for it in the open market. The BBC could do so much better with the license fee money. In particular, I blame Mark Thompson who saw fit to agree to pay these absurd salaries/fees when he was DG. He should have been investing in emerging talent. The BBC has enormous clout in that area.

[Tabasco Kid]

My mate served in Iraq, at Basra air station, and upon his return told me that the BBC was banned at the base. This was due to the anti British agenda that they portrayed, and only Sky news was allowed.

[Manwork04]

My mate served in Iraq, at Basra air station, and upon his return told me that the BBC was banned at the base. This was due to the anti British agenda that they portrayed, and only Sky news was allowed.

Since Sky has been under Comcast it’s just as bad.

[Tabasco Kid]

Since Sky has been under Comcast it’s just as bad.

He bought back a teeshirt for me. Khaki green, Basra air station Toucan bar motif, because they were allowed two cans of beer per day. I wore it once into work, in South London, never again. I was glared at by most people at Croydon train station, and the landlord of the local pub asked me not to wear it again. He liked my custom, but could not guarantee my safety. 

[Manwork04]

He bought back a teeshirt for me. Khaki green, Basra air station Toucan bar motif, because they were allowed two cans of beer per day. I wore it once into work, in South London, never again. I was glared at by most people at Croydon train station, and the landlord of the local pub asked me not to wear it again. He liked my custom, but could not guarantee my safety. 

If London was a body Croydon would be the arśehole.

[guest3566]

You can't beat a good pair of shoes or socks

[Joes Sweet Left Foot]

Common sense has prevailed and Lineker to be re-instated.

He has done more for this country in the last few days than the Tories have in the last 13 years.

As Gary has just said, "We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people", and long may it continue.

[Manwork04]

Common sense has prevailed and Lineker to be re-instated.

He has done more for this country in the last few days than the Tories have in the last 13 years.

As Gary has just said, "We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people", and long may it continue.

Common sense my arśe, why should a low life like Lineker use his profile, given to him by the tax payers of the BBC use this to fuel his political agenda.
Isn’t it funny that the right wing has been at loggerheads with the BBC and nothing is done as soon as it’s the self righteous left the BBC cave in to blackmail.

Utterly disgusting, the silent majority won’t forget this, we are the people.

[singcobb]

Common sense has prevailed and Lineker to be re-instated.

He has done more for this country in the last few days than the Tories have in the last 13 years.

As Gary has just said, "We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people", and long may it continue.

Oh please enlighten to what the twat has done for the country apart from fleece the tax payer.

[Shoemender]

Common sense my arśe, why should a low life like Lineker use his profile, given to him by the tax payers of the BBC use this to fuel his political agenda.
Isn’t it funny that the right wing has been at loggerheads with the BBC and nothing is done as soon as it’s the self righteous left the BBC cave in to blackmail.

Utterly disgusting, the silent majority won’t forget this, we are the people.

How is Lineker a "low life". His "political agenda" was to criticise tory plans for dealing with illegal immigrants crossing the channel.
Bet you never thought of him as a "low life" when he was knocking the goals in for England. Although being a Rangers fan, are you
a Scotland fan?

[itsme]

I for 1 am glad we live in a country of freedom of speech

What he tweets on his personal twitter has nothing to do with his job7