[Football] Gary Lineker to step back from presenting MOTD

[Titanic]

Gary Lineker to step back from presenting MOTD

Gary Lineker to step back from presenting Match of the Day until agreement reached on social media use - BBC statement

www.bbc.co.uk

Gary Lineker is to step back from presenting Match of the Day until an agreement is reached on his social media use - BBC statement.
It follows an impartiality row over comments he made criticising the government's new asylum policy.
In a tweet, the presenter had compared the language used by the government to set out its plan to "that used by Germany in the 30s".

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

he'd have got a knighthood

And a huge contract to provide something he has no experience with.

 

[rogersix]

Putting the money aside …finding people with no strong bias either way? Not easy.

everyone has a bunghole and an opinion, not many are paid up members of political parties tho'.

it's clearly a lot easier than davie and sharp

banana republic anyone?

 

[LamieRobertson]

everyone has a bunghole and an opinion, not many are paid up members of political parties tho'.

it's clearly a lot easier than davie and sharp

banana republic anyone?

I don’t necessarily disagree.

 

[Triggaaar]

Sounds like this Colin Murray fella should be suspended too then?

For being really really crap at his job.

 

[jcdenton08]

Lol ….it’s a term used only when it suits there side of the argument

I just mentally tune out. Hypotheticals are the entire basis of debate, if X then what about Y? People only ever jump to terms like “whataboutism” (ghastly word by the way) when being shown hypocrisy under their noses. It’s just really lazy and doesn’t answer the points raised.

 

[chip]

I hope Phil Stant is available for MOTD

 

[Goldstone1976]

...This is from bbc guidelines.

"There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters."

So it’s not a simple free speech argument. It’s a grey area for the bbc which they are clumsily wading through...

Given I'm not allowed to go to Dirty today (something about my daughter cooking us dinner before our baby arrives), I needed something to do this morning to replace the drive. I chose to read the BBC Guidelines in full.

I posted in a WhatsApp group I'm a member of the following:

"My conclusion is that they're a clusterf**k of incompatible instructions. It is perfectly possible to conclude from a selective reading that GL was in clear breach of the Guidelines and equally possible to conclude that he was not. What a total mess. It's possible that the contract he has with the Beeb clarifies the situation wrt him personally. Or not.

The whole situation now transcends a rational conclusion; it's now a political football and I see no winners coming out of this."

I then concluded with a personal observation about the Government policy that GL described as 'cruel'.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I just mentally tune out. Hypotheticals are the entire basis of debate, if X then what about Y? People only ever jump to terms like “whataboutism” (ghastly word by the way) when being shown hypocrisy under their noses. It’s just really lazy and doesn’t answer the points raised.

Lol there are enough threads on what if’s ….but they mustn’t be questioned

 

[ukpolska]

What a snowflake society we now live in.
If Alex Scott gets the MOTD job, then I'll be leaving this country in protest. The woman has zero presenting skills and very limited football intelligence as well.

TA-TA

 

[The Fits]

When there were people with hammers trying to intimidate immigrants at the hotel in Knowsley (?) there was barely a whisper of criticism from the mainstream press and the Tory party. Yet Linekar gets suspended for this...

 

[Happy Exile]

 

[ukpolska]

Presenters and that is all he is. Remember that.

I think Gary's comments were, in hindsight, slightly over the top, and I do not totally agree with them, but he has a point and every right to express his views, the same as anyone has. Suppressing freedom of speech is against Part 1 of the UK's Human Rights Act of 1998, which states:

Freedom of expression
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

The Human Rights Act has been referred to in many cases over the years and has set legal precedents for subsequent cases where there has been an infringement on freedom of expression.
If we suppress a person’s opinion just because we do not like it, then maybe he is right, and we are moving into the realms of fascism, and we all know where that dangerous path leads to.

Many presenters voice their own opinion, and I am sure you are aware of: Jeremy Clarkson, Chris Evans, Andrew Neil, Russell Brand and my favourite living in Poland as I do, Panorama’s Euro 2012: Stadiums of Hate showing footage of supporters chanting various xenophobic slogans and displays of white power symbols and banners in Poland as normal everyday happenings. Gary Lineker also voiced his concerns about the broadcast as well. If you try and think objectively, this has been going on for years and years, yet we pick on this as some cataclysmic disaster.

Plus, we listen to lies and crap from politicians all the time, but it is funny how we do not hold them accountable, and one would argue that they are in an even more influential position. But dare someone holds a different view criticising them, they all band together with all guns blazing and try to suppress that impudent little twerp.

 

[Stato]

I just mentally tune out. Hypotheticals are the entire basis of debate, if X then what about Y? People only ever jump to terms like “whataboutism” (ghastly word by the way) when being shown hypothetical hypocrisy under their noses. It’s just really lazy and doesn’t answer the points raised.

Corrected for you.

Lineker didn't support Sunak or agree with Fox. There is no hypocrisy except the imagined hypocrisy in the hypothetical offered. Nobody knows what the reaction of any of the players would have been in an invented scenario. In honest debate, you can't invent a hypothetical, imagine the potential response of your opponent and use it to claim hypocrisy.

Anyway, I thought you said a few pages back that none of this was going anywhere and you weren't going to comment anymore. You've posted half a dozen times since then.

 

[Triggaaar]

I’ve read the thread. I support Lineker. I’m pointing out how frenzied this place is. It becomes an echo chamber because people who feel differently are shot down immediately and labelled.

I partly agree with you (it is a bit of an echo chamber) but then I also disagree with a lot of the politics said on here, and I often say so. Although I guess I do avoid a lot of the political threads because it does often see that only one opinion there is really accepted.

Regardless of politics though, it does appear that the BBC are not treating Lineker in the same way that they're treating their other presenters, and it looks like they've ignored their own rules on what presenters can privately say. They need to admit their mistake and backtrack asap.

 

[willalbion]

Why are the same people defending the publisher over Dahl now kicking off over this?

That’s rhetorical right?

 

[A1X]

 

[SeagullinExile]

In all seriousness though, the entire football broadcasting world has basically come out in Gary’s defence. Knowing that you peers and colleagues have your back in that way must feel f***ing awesome.

I suspect there's a lot of disingenuous support among his peers. Seems to me that a lot of these presenters, pundits etc etc have been playing a waiting game and are now just following suit. Dominoes springs to mind. They've all become too matey matey.

Yup, publicity whores.

 

[Triggaaar]

also, the right wing johnies have no logical validity, that is why there are so few of you

But there are so few, that they keep voting the tories in?

 

[rogersix]

Lol ….it’s a term used only when it suits there side of the argument

what do you think should happen to alan sugar for his repeated outbursts on twitter now that the BBC guidelines have been re-interpreted?

 

[DJ NOBO]

Standing united with your colleague over his rights to express his opinions about a government decision without getting suspended is "example of stars believing they are much more important they really..."?

One could also argue it is a case of stars trying to take some responsibility for once. Lineker could have been quiet and earned his millions. Instead he decided to stand up for his quite altruistic opinions despite the risk of him turning into a persona non grata on English television.

Lineker took a battle for the immigrants. Now his colleagues are taking a battle for the right to criticise government without getting suspended.
You don't understand what it could mean for you and your society if you're always in risk of losing your job if you aren't pro-government. This is the ongoing battle.

You can choose to think "I don't like Lineker and I don't like immigrants so I'm siding with the BBC/Government" or you can think "hmm, maybe this getting suspended or sacked for not liking the government could come back and bite me in the arse the day I might disagree with the government on some subject or another".

The BBC‘s views on impartiality, and how this affects those it pays, seem to have passed you by. One could argue they are not clear enough, or applied very well. But they do exist and have done for a very long time .
So maybe we will all get fired if we speak out against the government one day , but this is more about a unique company and it’s specific conditions.