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)

I don't know why it's so hard for people to grasp.

It's simple, far too many people get their facts and opinions from the hard right print media.

But all they had to do was read what he actually wrote. It’s really not that difficult.

He's coming back and the BBC will be apologising to him.

Good it was a complete cock up, with other BBC well known faces tweeting what they like... Alan Sugar, Deborah Meaden, Richard Osman for instance. And not receiving this treatment.

You do not got the majority of the BBC sports comentators and journalists walking out over nothing. They shot themselves in the foot and I imagine there were plenty of networks offering him far more than the Beeb pay him.

news.sky.com/story/gary-lineker-to-return-to-hosting-sport-for-the-bbc-following-row-over-migration-tweets-12832734

It's entirely down to his contract. If there's nothing in his contract that forbids him discussing politics then the BBC needs to suck it up & look to renegotiate next time it's renewed. That's it as far as I'm concerned. If his public profile doesn't work for them they should put some effort into advancing younger presenters.

They've handled this so badly

AFS1 · Yesterday 09:43
Andrew Neil owns one of the most right leaning magazines in this country

Which magazine is this?

Germany was ruled by Hitler & the Nazi Part from 1933 onwards.

Yes because he made clear that he wasn't happy about it, both on his social media and on air. However, he was contractually obliged to do it and so chose to add balance by not broadcasting the celebratory opening ceremony and instead broadcasting an overview of the human rights horrors there.

The Spectator.

Germany was ruled by Hitler & the Nazi Part from 1933 onwards.

Indeed. And the language was very similar. That’s all he said.

And?

That means nothing and is exactly what I'm talking about. If you read history, you'll know exactly the tactics of language is what helped Hitler grow in popularity.

Hitler wasn't killing Jews from day one. He first created animosity by 'othering' the Jews. This is exactly what SB has done, if you read her speech.

I don't understand what you're arguing. Gary Lineker clearly compared the language of our government to the language of Hitler's government in the 1930s. I don't have a problem with that. If he believes it, he should be able to argue it.

I completely agree with your post. If feel the same.

The BBC is publicly funded but it isn't meant to be 'owned by the government'. That's a pretty fundamental point. They are meant to be impartial. The issue is that they are not.

Well he’s coming back now so you’ll just get the other side saying it’s not impartial for the opposite reason.

Their guidelines need to be better if a media storm like this can happen.

They need to be clear on what someone in GL situation can put on SM.

Well. BBC apologised, hopefully that’s it for them in terms of hot water and they can continue to clear things up quietly and fix their ridiculous staff gagging policies. Including making it clear to the public who we are are are not allowed to expect to hear opinions from 🙄

The more I read the discourse on this thread, I am starting to see more of GL’s point. But that’s why I’m pissed off… this discussion could have been had by his followers et al. without it being blown so out of proportion, and maybe some people would have had their opinions changed. Maybe not. Who the hell knows.

As far as I’m concerned this is still a disturbing consequence of Downing Street trying to manipulate the media, and the BBC apologising won’t change my opinion, I’m comfortable with that now.

Blossomtoes & AFS1
Andrew Neil doesn’t own the Spectator - he is its chairman.
Frederick Barclay owns it.

Gary Lineker has tweeted four tweets. Well done him and all who supported him.

twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1635220356737937413

129k likes in less than three hours. That’s bloody massive.

135K now!

Yes it is massive. Well done to everyone who supported him and I hope BBC have learnt a lesson from this,

I was incensed with Laura Kuennsberg on Sunday morning who managed to hunt for two very negative tweets/emails about it to read out. With nothing positive. No balance there whatsoever.

I think BBC need to look up the meaning of the word 'impartiality'.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/13/bbc-cowardice-gary-lineker-rebellion?CMP=share_btn_tw

Great article. A bit of it...
The most urgent requirement in this latest of many self-inflicted meltdowns is to make peace with a football presenter who was always popular and has now been turned into a national treasure. The second is to sort out the mess that are impartiality guidelines, enforced far more assiduously on liberal than conservative employees or contractors.
The third is to remove inconsistencies and hypocrisies. You should not stop one celebrity freelance from speaking out, while allowing others to. You should not remove a journalist from a leftwing magazine from presenting shifts, while allowing one from its rightwing rival to have as many programmes as he likes.
The most important task, however, it is to acquire a spine, to understand that the next time a minister harangues you (which will be tomorrow, the next day and the day after), you tell them to take a running jump.
Like dry rot, the fear principle is now so ingrained that it will take a long time to scrape it out. Friends in Russia, Georgia, Turkey, and all those fighting for freedom of expression, are scratching their heads at the notion of an institution long respected around the world taking its best-known sports presenter off air because he has the temerity to speak out passionately on asylum. That is not a good look for the UK.

Roussette
He didn't say 'the government are nazis'. Just look at the words and the language. Contrast and compare. 1930 ("pouring into this country). 2023. (flooding Britain)

That's not an example from 1930s Germany though - that's an example from 1930s Britain. The Daily Mail is a British newspaper.

Blossomtoes
(Germany was ruled by Hitler & the Nazi Part from 1933 onwards)
Indeed. And the language was very similar.

Do you have any examples from 1930s Germany?

Some here -
Caricatures From Der Stürmer date from 1932;
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/caricatures-from-der-st-uuml-rmer-jewish-virtual-library

Propaganda and Children During the Hitler Years - including examples from 1933/1935;
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/propaganda-and-children-during-the-hitler-years

The Daily Mail is a British newspaper
So?

It shows the sort of language used. I can't believe you are defending this.

Own goal Clav.

Roussette
It shows the sort of language used

No it doesn't - my links show Germany in a very dark place. Next you will be telling me that the DfE are publishing children's books describing asylum seekers as 'evil' or 'vermin' - language used in school books for young children in 1930s Germany.

As for 'pouring into this country' - this headline from the Guardian in 2002 doesn't look dissimilar to me;
www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/24/immigrationpolicy.immigrationandpublicservices

Or this one from 2021;
edition.cnn.com/2021/08/13/europe/belarus-lithuania-border-migrants-eu-cmd-intl/index.html

The Times leading article today described Gary Lineker's insinuation 'a grotesque analogy' .

@Clavinova the fact that David Blunkett used that kind of language makes him just as wrong. But back then it was an exception, whereas if you look at the spread of covers shown further back in the thread, it is now commonplace in certain parts of the UK press.

I would also argue that the use of this kind of language by people in government is worse than its being used by people in the press, who are all about selling newspapers.