[James2001]

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.

Yep, Andrew Neil never hid his political views, yet still presented BBC programmes which required him to have to treat politicians from all sides equally. Yet Gary Lineker, whose BBC role doesn't involve politics whatsoever, is expected to remain silent on his politics. It's all very hypocritical when one the BBC's main political presenters ran a very right wing magazine and few people took issue with it, but when a sports presenter offers political opinions, which in no way affects his job or what he does or says on screen, people are calling for him to go.

[Humphrey Hacker]

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

It's a stance of neutrality from my perspective He works for The BBC and The BBC are supposed to be impartial when it comes to political matters.Yes I'm sure he feels very strongly about the issue and he has the right to an opinion but it was his reference to Nazi Germany that concerned me and his conflation between that period and the current situation

I know its an old fashioned view but Its something I believe it.

[DTV]

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.

My point wasn't that there was no complaint, just there is no overlap in the complainants - meaning that the complaints are not sincerely done out of principle, but motivated purely by tribal politics. Not a single one of the media outlets or politicians complaining about Lineker would have an issue if he had endorsed the policy, they'd no doubt be pointing at liberals campaigning to have him sacked as an example of 'cancel culture' and a threat to 'free speech' - both things that tabloids are, of course, genuinely concerned about .

The reality is, if you actually want to go down the 'you're a BBC face (i.e., people would primarily associate you with your BBC work), you cannot express any views that could be deemed political' route without any exceptions, that's Michael Portillo gone; David Attenborough, out; dozens of science presenters and pretty much the entire comedy industry blacklisted. Doctor Who is as prominently BBC as Match of the Day, should the rules apply to the stars of that too? An actually complete ban would be destructive, so any restrictions should purely be limited to those for whom expressing political views undermines their ability to do their job correctly (i.e., on air News staff, off air editorial News staff and BBC executives).

[Keith]

Whilst not quite the same thing it's perhaps worth remembering pre-social media Robert Kilroy-Silk www.theguardian.com .

BBC pulls Kilroy-Silk show after anti-Arab comments | Newspapers & magazines | T…
<p><strong>3.30pm:</strong> The BBC has taken Robe…
  Source: www.theguardian.com

I'm fairly certain Clarkson historically got himself into trouble for his Sun column and/or social media, whilst presenting Top Gear.

Heaven forbid if Piers Morgan had been presenting on a BBC programme, rather than ITV (or now Talk TV), what headaches the BBC would have had over his opinions.

[DTV]

Whilst not quite the same thing it's perhaps worth remembering pre-social media Robert Kilroy-Silk

I'm fairly certain Clarkson historically got himself into trouble for his Sun column and/or social media, whilst presenting Top Gear.

Heaven forbid if Piers Morgan had been presenting on a BBC programme, rather than ITV (or now Talk TV), what headaches the BBC would have had over his opinions.

As I said, discriminatory remarks are a different category. While the proportionality of the instant dismissal might be debateable, Kilroy was also presenting a social affairs discussion programme - if the BBC felt he held prejudiced views, it is reasonable to question whether he could present the show fairly.

Clarkson did frequently get into issues with his opinions and comments - including criticising the government on a range of issues and mocking the then PM's disability - but the BBC didn't sack him for them, despite being one of their most notable entertainment presenters. That's probably the closest precedent case and I think it's hard to argue that Lineker has gone as far as Clarkson did.

Morgan would create issues, although I don't think his views are substantively different from Andrew Neil's (if more vocally expressed), but it depends on whether he was in a current affairs or entertainment role.

[interestednovice]

Clarkson was given multiple formal warnings though, and told he was on a “final warning” ahead of the incident that led to his firing.

[AndyB2008]

Whilst not quite the same thing it's perhaps worth remembering pre-social media Robert Kilroy-Silk www.theguardian.com .

I'm fairly certain Clarkson historically got himself into trouble for his Sun column and/or social media, whilst presenting Top Gear.

Heaven forbid if Piers Morgan had been presenting on a BBC programme, rather than ITV (or now Talk TV), what headaches the BBC would have had over his opinions.

The axing of Kilroy in 2004 saw it replaced with a extended half hour of BBC Breakfast, followed by a new show produced by his company called Now You're Talking, presented by Julia Sawalha's sister Nadia and Nicky Campbell.

That didn't last long and Breakfast reverted to a 9.15am finish. (Until next year).

[Steve in Pudsey]

It's a stance of neutrality from my perspective He works for The BBC and The BBC are supposed to be impartial when it comes to political matters.Yes I'm sure he feels very strongly about the issue and he has the right to an opinion but it was his reference to Nazi Germany that concerned me and his conflation between that period and the current situation

I know its an old fashioned view but Its something I believe it.

The problem with that particular tweet was that various media outlets exaggerated and embellished what he actually said.

He specifically criticised the use of language not dissimilar to that of 1930s Germany. That was surely a back reference to an actual holocaust survivor calling out the Home Secretary on the same point a few weeks previously?

www.independent.co.uk 

Suella Braverman tells Holocaust survivor she ‘won’t apologise’ for refugee ‘inv…
‘When I hear you using words against refugees ... I am reminded of the language …
  Source: www.independent.co.uk

It wasn't his analogy, and the originator of the analogy seems to be uniquely qualified and entitled to make that comparison.

An alternative old fashioned view to the one which you articulate is that many people would prefer not to have political leaders making policy and using language that invites that kind of comparison.

[Former Member 237]

This is the behaviour of an activist, not a BBC presenter. It doesn’t matter if it is a good cause, that does not distract from the point of the issue. Please remember every time his actions are given approval, this sets a precedent. The BBC has enough political reporters to provide analysis on actions by our law makers. Those that think it’s acceptable must be prepared for others that may come after GL. And that really will destroy the BBC. Pre social media examples are really irrelevant. This is a new era. Think carefully before you permit employees to run rampant the BBC should be thinking. Otherwise it will run out of control. It doesn’t matter which department or devision they work for, people only see one BBC.

[DTV]

Clarkson was given multiple formal warnings though, and told he was on a “final warning” ahead of the incident that led to his firing.

Sure, but 'final warning' is always code for 'we don't really want to sack you'. Plus, many of his controversies involved discriminatory language and/or were during the production of a BBC programme. For instance, he once delivered an anti-Labour speech to the Top Gear audience before studio recording. If Lineker was giving slur-writhen speeches to the SPOTY audience pre-broadcast, it would be a different matter.

This is the behaviour of an activist, not a BBC presenter. It doesn’t matter if it is a good cause, that does not distract from the point of the issue. Please remember every time his actions are given approval, this sets a precedent. [...] Think carefully before you permit employees to run rampant the BBC should be thinking. Otherwise it will run out of control. It doesn’t matter which department or devision they work for, people only see one BBC.

Lineker no more sets a precedent than Neil did on social media usage or Attenborough does on activism (which has included criticism of govt policy and party political endorsements). Indeed, it's impossible to draft rules that restrict Lineker's activism that wouldn't also prevent Attenborough's climate advocacy or other sport presenters criticising lack of girl's football in schools. But, sure, what about some hypotheticals.

In terms of long-term damage to the BBC, I would say that anybody genuinely concerned about BBC impartiality would be more bothered by the fact the BBC's head of impartiality is a party political figure with a history of being accused of inserting his views into BBC output. But, of course, Lineker's critics are conspicuously silent about Robbie Gibb, because their concern about BBC impartiality isn't genuine, rather a party political game.

And as for 'people only see one BBC' and view Lineker as inseparable from it, do people assume Walkers are officially endorsed by the BBC? No, obviously.