[interestednovice]

It is interesting this issue about the BBC, because I don't see people getting into uproar about MPs or peers commentating on political issues, and like the BBC, they are paid from the public purse.

Of course I can hear people screaming "they are elected" - yes, alright, but it seems to me this issue can be resolved very simply - work for BBC News or BBC Current Affairs, you are under restrictions of what you can say about political issues, everyone else, can say what they wish, within reasonable context.

That is how I would sort it out, because otherwise you will have this come up time and time again not just for Gary, but for other BBC presenters.

I feel like that’s exactly what the BBC have tried to do, except they’ve also added a list of “prominent names”, which arguably so embody BBC programmes they are treated to some extent as synonymous with the BBC itself.

[Luc]

It is interesting this issue about the BBC, because I don't see people getting into uproar about MPs or peers commentating on political issues, and like the BBC, they are paid from the public purse.

Of course I can hear people screaming "they are elected" - yes, alright, but it seems to me this issue can be resolved very simply - work for BBC News or BBC Current Affairs, you are under restrictions of what you can say about political issues, everyone else, can say what they wish, within reasonable context.

That is how I would sort it out, because otherwise you will have this come up time and time again not just for Gary, but for other BBC presenters.

I think it will ultimately go in that direction. Also, just to point out Gary isn't potentially in breach for signing the Rwanda letter, it's for the ensuing spats with Gullis and Shapps - who attacked him first, unprovoked.

Separately, I wouldn't be surprised if he did transition out of Match of the Day at the end of his contract to be honest. He doubtless loves that job but seems to be stepping up the podcasting and his business there is thriving. I can see some sort of halfway house where he maybe does big tournaments and someone else takes on MOTD or vice versa.

[Humphrey Hacker]

I’m not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse, yes but that was their choice. It was not directed by the BBC. As I previously said, this did not go down well as not everyone has this luxury. And certainly highlights the kind of in the bubble dispute which it is. Can they please just get on with the job, and if they want to pursue political matters enter a different industry. Like anyone else would have to do.

Hear hear. Lineker et al are paid a lot of money to talk about football to an audience of millions. Their political views should be kept either behind closed doors or between themselves and the ballot box.

NB.I didn't know MOTD had been renewed when I posted this morning.

[DTV]

It's interesting how often Lineker's salary comes into this discussion. If he offered to do his BBC work pro bono, would that mean he could express his views?

Quite frankly, I think the whole thing is a load of fuss over absolutely nothing (I genuinely cannot fathom how you'd care) and just leads to loads of people showing their arse. I don't think I ever saw any of the people baying at Lineker calling for Andrew Neil to be sacked from his job when he was at the BBC, despite him regularly expressing his controversial views on social media and having a stake in a highly ideological magazine. But of course they wouldn't, the complaining is purely a shibboleth for whether you agree with Lineker or not. The fact that both he and Neil do/did their job well, regardless of their views and outside interests, is all that should really matter.

I'd also add I find the 'back in your sports box' stuff quite distasteful given the implication that being a sports star makes your opinion worth less.

[interestednovice]

There actually was some backlash to Andrew Neil’s tweeting, he was asked to tone it down by BBC bosses if I recall - and it got some coverage at the time.

Lord Sugar was also told to think about what he was tweeting more carefully.

Emily Maitlis was told she should not be tweeting about various things, and decided that she could not put up with that so left the BBC.

It’s not just about Gary and it’s also not just about whether you agree with him. The picture is much more complicated than that.

[Former Member 237]

Andrew Neil was a poltical journalist. And I am pretty sure if a presenter came out calling for people to sign a goverement partition it would be wrong in the same way today.

So are you stating clearly, that if a presenter of the BBC came out today in favour of views you strongly disagree with you’d be fine with that? Even if I agreeded with the view I would not be, because you are always going to turn half the country against the BBC.

This is about applying the same rules to all. Nobody said their views do not matter, just that they are no more qualified to comment than you or me, so how does that help the situation other than bringing the BBC into the matter? I think people care because they are paying for him, even if it's 1p. And it is not possible to not pay for him due to the law. That is why it is so crutial in regards to the BBC. It is paid for by everyone, so you cannot take a side or you destory it. I think everything that can be said has been said. Some people are never going to get it. Merry Christmas.

[Brekkie]

Andrew Neil was a poltical journalist. And I am pretty sure if a presenter came out calling for people to sign a goverement partition it would be wrong in the same way today.

So are you stating clearly, that if a presenter of the BBC came out today in favour of views you strongly disagree with you’d be fine with that? Even if I agreeded with the view I would not be, because you are always going to turn half the country against the BBC.

This is about applying the same rules to all. Nobody said their views do not matter, just that they are no more qualtified to comment than you or me, so how does that help the situation other than bringing the BBC into the matter? I think people care because they are paying for him, even if it's 1p. And it is not possible to not pay for him due to the law. That is why is so crutial in regards to the BBC. It is paid for by everyone, so you cannot take a side or you destory it.

Andrew Neil had strong links to The Spectator during much of his time at the BBC. Funnily enough that was never deemed a problem despite the publications deemed political leanings, but get the impression as well as the pro/anti-government bias when it comes to criticising the BBC I think there is a new media/old media jealousy issue from the press too. I suspect if Gary Lineker was writing these thoughts in a newspaper column even those that didn't agree would be crying about freedom of the press.

[thePineapple]

Shamir Shah - soon to be BBC DG - is described by his friends (according to Peston of ITV) as a Tory - and as "anti-woke". If the important part of this story is about bringing the BBC into disrepute and about not showing due impartiality, maybe we could start at the top.
It would be madness for the BBC to not renew any contract with Lineker (if this was true), or to change MOTD because of it - it's a huge success and attracts a unique audience. Apart from some wrangling from the press and resulting opportunism from politicians seeking to discredit the BBC, the status quo on impartiality guidelines has few problems. Maybe Lineker should be more careful in sticking to them, but it's an issue that has been blown out of proportion.

[DTV]

So are you stating clearly, that if a presenter of the BBC came out today in favour of views you strongly disagree with you’d be fine with that?

Unless it was ideologically extremist or discriminatory, yes. I never called for Andrew Neil to be removed as senior political presenter or Jeremy Clarkson to be sacked as presenter of one the BBC's main entertainment programmes or David Tennant to be blacklisted as an actor on one of the BBC's largest drama properties or Brian Cox to be axed as a science presenter on account of their open and public political views. I don't even care if Coast is repeated, despite the nature of one of its presenters today.

Ultimately, what I care about is did they do the work the BBC asked for to the standard the BBC expected of them. If they can do that, fine. I just don't play along with these little partisan/culture war games.

This is about applying the same rules to all. Nobody said their views do not matter, just that they are no more qualtified to comment than you or me, so how does that help the situation other than bringing the BBC into the matter?

But a) the same rules don't apply to all - there are plenty of prominent BBC faces who can still be openly political. And b) I don't really see why they should apply to all - outside of News or management, I don't think there's any real need for the BBC's jurisdiction to extend to off air hours. Even then, of course, Neil was a senior BBC News face for two decades and none of the people crying about Lineker had an issue with him expressing his views off air - highlighting the fact the current squabble is purely partisan, not principle.

And the thing is, Lineker actually spends a great deal of time on the one issue he is vocal about - he's probably more qualified to comment about it than a lot of the blowhards on Politics Live or Question Time.

[Steve in Pudsey]

Hear hear. Lineker et al are paid a lot of money to talk about football to an audience of millions. Their political views should be kept either behind closed doors or between themselves and the ballot box.

NB.I didn't know MOTD had been renewed when I posted this morning.

In what way is his talking about football being affected by him additionally making comment on matters of public interest?