Lineker's Goal Ruled Offside

Gary Lineker, for those who don't know, was a hugely successful footballer, playing in the UK, Spain/Catalunya, Japan and I think in the US. He hosts the most watched football show on tv, BBC-1's Match of the Day, where he is articulate, and has a rapport with other analysts, some of whom are ex-footballers with shit for brains, but you can't have everything.

The disappointment for me in his tweet on the UK govt policy on illegal immigrants seeking asylum, and his comparison with Nazi Germany, is not just that it is a lazy reference, but that if he was better informed, he could have drawn comparisons with the odious racist drivel that was rife in this country in the second half of the 1960s and the 1970s. At the time, the Govts -Labour and Conservative- were thrown into disarray by the expulsion of Asians from East Africa, first Kenya, and then Uganda.

So great was the crisis that the Conservative Govt of Edward Heath passed the first Immigration Act since 1948 while on the streets the National Front, led by a Nazi apologist called John Tyndall, whipped up a frenzy of street fights and other acts of vandalism (desecrating Jewish graves being a soft target). The crisis over the Asian immigrants spilled over into the Afro-Caribbean communities and thus the language became equally nasty and offensive, and in some cases the National Front even did well in local elections. Their thunder is said to have been stolen by Margaret Thatcher in the 1979 election campaign when she feared the UK might be 'swamped with immigrants' -though she didn't offer much in policy terms to deal with it, but maybe got the votes.

Most remarkable of all, the language and the policies that led Edward Heath to expel Enoch Powell from the Conservative Party are now standard, centrist fare, just as in the US what used to be the politics of a lunatic fringe has taken hold of centre stage and is unashamedly anti-Democtatic.

Lineker, I guess, will keep his job. He is a freelance presenter and can go on to other things if he chooses. The BBC has in any case more than Lineker making political statements while presenting programmes.

The links -
The Telegraph, which loathes Lineker and whose readers have been baiting him for years=
Gary Lineker thought he was untouchable - but failed to heed the warnings (yahoo.com)

Elsewhere-
Viewers react to ‘silent’ Match of the Day as pundit-less episode airs (yahoo.com)

BBC director-general apologises, but does not resign over Gary Lineker row (yahoo.com)

Lineker signed a contract with stated clauses about what he could/couldn't say and happily took the money in doing so. Lazy statements based on a little knowledge are a dangerous thing. Now he wants his cake and eat it while his rich playground buddies put buddiness first rather than the people who paid their (large) salaries. Just walk on, walk on Gary and piss off to your choice of broadcasters....

Ouch!

Problem is that ITV only does occasional football, and Mark Pougatch is a fine presenter, which leaves Channel 4, 5, TalkTV or GB News, the latter two unlikely to welcome him. My guess is the BBC will reach an accommodation to save Match of the Day, unless the Saudis see an opportunity to buy the whole of English football and put it on another channel. They are investing billions in sport though it is possible they might come under legal investigation in the US over the LIV tour.

But the wider questions about BBC management won't go away, and this could also feed the arguments about scrapping the licence fee. I suppose there is some irony that the Telegraph mob who want the BBC privatized, are dealing with an example of how the BBC has farmed out its programmes, presenters, etc, to the 'private sector' so in a way, they have something of what they have asked for. There are no winners here.

Why is it a breach of BBC impartiality for a sports presenter to state a political view off-air, but not for the BBC chairman to arrange a loan for the former Prime Minister?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Why is it a breach of BBC impartiality for a sports presenter to state a political view off-air, but not for the BBC chairman to arrange a loan for the former Prime Minister?

---

The confusion seems to revolve around the 'rules' and whether or not they were written into Lineker's contract, thus-

"The BBC inserted a brief paragraph into its social media rules to cover non-news stars like Lineker. It states that presenters have “additional responsibility” to the BBC on social media and should “avoid taking sides on party political issues.”"
but
"One source told Deadline that the social media rules introduced in 2020 were not fully reflected in a five-year contract Lineker signed before the guidelines came into force. This person said social media use should be built into presenter contracts to avoid a repeat of the past few days".
Gary Lineker: BBC Ignored Warning To Review Freelance Presenter Tweets – Deadline

But Lineker is not innocent or naive on this. My guess is that he had legal advice that enabled him to tweet as he did, and does. And as widely reported, Lineker is not the only freelancer with a BBC contract airing his or her views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

And as widely reported, Lineker is not the only freelancer with a BBC contract airing his or her views.

---

Therein lies the problem. It looks like the BBC's de facto definition of "taking sides on party political issues" is when the government and its media cronies kick up a stink. This is not the only recent example. https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...backlash-fears

I'm wondering how it would be possible define contractually what comments are prohibited. For example, if David Attenborough bemoans the lack of action on climate change is that a party political comment?