To think this isn’t actually the BBC’s fight?

[notonbodycomparisonsites]

Hear me out… I’m not very politically minded. This is my view as a lay person with unlimited access to the news and the internet…

But my personal opinion is that the BBC shouldn’t be held to task like this, not at this time.

They definitely need to assess their policies on who is allowed to say what and when. But the fact is that a public figure disagreed with the government, and the government didn’t want their actions criticised publicly, so they pulled out the ‘we own the BBC card’ and used BBC policy to attempt to shut the matter up. As far as I’m concerned that seems like a misuse of power, and as much as the BBC need to sort themselves out, I’d rather acknowledge that I’m uncomfortable we even got here to begin with!

For what it’s worth, I don’t actually agree with Gary Lineker’s opinion on the immigration matter and the 1930’s Germany blah blah blah… but I’m still glad I live in a society where I got to hear him say it .

So… AIBU for thinking that we should soon be hearing from the government with a little apology for causing such a major fucking mess?

(Please don’t ask me anything about politics)

@Salverus i never really understand these types of opinions. Every opinion we hear in the news is from some trumped up person that probably “shouldn’t be allowed to have an opinion”. Nothing GL has said or done is remarkable. Nobody shoved anything down anybody’s throat; in fact I believe the Tory government would have been wise to shut up and let this unremarkable opinion drift off with all the others. (if the intention wasn’t to cause all this in the first place)

Yes I do agree.

I wonder what GL gets out of having a huge twitter fan base. I guess it must be quite intoxicating.

So as soon as you become a celeb, you cease to be a member of the public? What is this special rule that denies celebrities their human rights?

I am all for free speech but I also think most people are sensible about what they publish under their name on social media; under the bar of bringing company into disrepute. Whether that’s right or wrong is an other argument in itself. Personally I think pretty wrong, but then you do have to be careful on how you say things so they aren’t sensationalist and stick to the facts. I do think what he wrote was pretty sensationalist and posted to cause an online bun fight. There’s certain topics which are sensitive and the nazi Holocaust is one of them.

And I didn't say GL "shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion". Of course he is. I just have no interest in knowing what it is.

He didnt say anything about the holocaust

He also didnt bring his company (he is freelance by the way but lets assume the BBC is his employer) into disrepute

Ugh.

Being gobby on twitter and annoying your boss isn't a human right

How did he 'annoy his boss'?

The Government, the BBC trying to control what someone says is laughable.
He's not exclusively employed by the BBC. He's not an employee. (Although that's debatable after the recent Uber case, but that's a whole other thread!!). He's a contractor. He has other jobs. Sky. Walkers crisps. Loads of others.

He’s lived his entire adult life in the public eye; everybody has asked him his opinion for most of his life. Psychologically, it doesn’t surprise me that he feels entitled to speak out when he has an opinion. Celebrity actions really shouldn’t surprise most people. None of what has happened after the government intervened has surprised me. It’s simply unsettled me that the government intervened in the first place: the public consensus seems based on some kind of idea that GL actively interfered with government policy. And that is completely ridiculous.

Being gobby on twitter i.e free speech is a human right. You can choose to ignore what is said that is your right.

He is freelance so is his own boss

The BBC didn't seem too happy and I believe they are one of his bosses in that he is employed by them?

Well, I mean, nobody can help you there. You need to close your browser. Sincerely. If you want to escape celebrity opinions you need to escape celebrity culture and that won’t happen by hanging out online.

I'm freelance, that doesn't mean you can piss off a client and expect to remain employed by them. Clearly he's pissed off the BBC, whether they were right or wrong is up to them - I agree with the OP that they probably should have just ignored it, but that was the risk he took I guess.

GL has tweeted very strongly antiBrexit stuff for years. Those opinions didn't cause a scandal. I can't understand why this tweet triggered BBC panic when private opinions by A.Neil, Adam Rutherford, Boris Johnson (remember he worked on HIGN4U?), John Humphries, Sandi Toksvig, Peter Allen (openly talked about being member of Tory party), Jeremy Clarkson & a zillion other people didn't cause uproar.

DH says it's because most the others are clowns or started out as political pundits or simply didn't suggest "Nazi" connotations. I'm told problem is that GL is a "serious guy". (yeah, like all sports reporters ??) All of which is cherry-picking who is allowed private opinions. I totally get why other current presenters are standing in solidarity with GL. BBC presenters are NOT Royalty or civil servants, they are allowed to have private opinions on political matters.

@StormInaDcup99

Yes you are unreasonable. The WC being held in Qatar was a disgrace. UEFA corrupt. Hotels not built on time, using cheap Labour. The timing was wrong, didn't suit the premier league timetable. But once it's decided what can you do. You can choose to not watch. I didn't choose that. I knew it was all wrong, but what could I do. I watched. I love it, because I like football.

He voiced his objections. I agreed with him. But he then went. To do a job. Which they did actually need presenters there to present. Was every football pundit in the world supposed to refuse? To go to the World Cup? No!

I just can't think why Richard Sharp, Robbie Gibb or Tim Davies would be cross with GL and not Lord Sugar or Andrew Neil or John Humphrey. It's a real head scratcher.

The BBC has had it in for Gary Lineker, ever since he took a principled stand against the human rights abuses in Qatar and refused to broadcast during the World Cup.

Poor Alan Shearer was the same, when he walked away from his contract with Al Jazeera almost immediately after ten years due to his discomfort with the regime there.

And Ian Wright’s brave backing of Matt Le Tissier and Phil Neal for expressing their own opinions, completely against the general sentiment of the time, was such a tremendous example of defending free speech, too.

Being beacons of morality sadly makes you a target, as Gary and Alan et al, are finding out. The word hero is often overused today, and MOTD or not, their light shines on.

"DH says it's because most the others are clowns or started out as political pundits or simply didn't suggest "Nazi" connotations."

Sugar tweeted a mocked up picture of Corbyn in a car with Hitler.

When you mention nazi Germany you are by extension referencing the Holocaust.

And the disrepute thing well that’s a grey area isn’t it which is why most people would be careful about what they post around sensitive topics under their real name.

I am not saying he can’t discuss this topic or say this opinion if it’s something he genuinely believes. But a 140 character tweet is not in my opinion a genuine attempt to discuss this topic sensitively and seriously. A tweet of this nature is sensationalist. He should have written an article or blog and could caveat that it’s not to do with the Holocaust etc. If that is what he believes. Because right now it’s reading as basically ‘conservatives are one step away from mass genocide’

I agree. His profile is such that politically charged comments will reflect on the BBC and he fully understands that. Thousands of people in organisations will limit what they say on social media because their comments will be linked to their organisation. This is not a curb on free speech.

@Salverus im not convinced he did piss off the BBC to this extent though. I don’t think they would have done a damn thing if RS didn’t insist and that’s where I start to feel uncomfortable. Like you, I couldn’t give the shiniest shit what GL’s opinion is. Most of the time, I’ll be honest (and I hope nobody reads this comment) I can’t even give a shit what the new government policy is because I know I can’t do a damn thing about it unless I smear cake over a statue naked, and quite frankly I can’t be arsed with the effort. So I listen, laugh, and turn off the radio or tv or whatever. But I’m not comfortable listening to this right now because it’s gone beyond anybody’s opinion. In my opinion 😉

Why arent they happy, they dont have anything to do with government policy do they?

I think it's understandable for the government to do this. If I owned a company and they were talking badly about me I would put my foot down too.

Can anybody saying that GL should have minded what he said, sincerely declare that they believe the BBC would have taken action following his tweet regardless of No. 10’s response? I don’t think they would have done.