[Kojak]

He would work well on GMB I think.

We should have a law - let’s call it Austin’s Law (as I believe Mark Austin was the first person to be the subject). Whenever someone high profile quits or is forced out of their role, we have a bet as to how many pages it takes until someone suggests them for GMB. It happened with Mark, Simon McCoy, and I’m pretty sure also Huw Edwards (and no doubt others whom I cannot remember off the top of my head). 

But yes, Gary probably would work well on GMB. At least he actually is a presenter, which is more than can be said for the likes of Ed Balls and Alastair Campbell.

[Newsroom]

twitter.com 

This is going to turn into a bloodbath for the BBC.

[IanJRedman]

How likely is it that the BBC are going to pull tomorrow's show, do we think?

[Newshound47]

The BBC has history of inaccurate statements regarding notable personal stepping down or resigning which then soon unravel for them.

[eyeTV]

How likely is it that the BBC are going to pull tomorrow's show, do we think?

They are contractually obliged surely?

[Alf Stewart]

twitter.com 

This is going to turn into a bloodbath for the BBC.

Yep watching the News Channel (or whatever it's called now) and they're tying themselves in knots over this

[Newshound47]

How likely is it that the BBC are going to pull tomorrow's show, do we think?

Extremely unlikely they would be in breach of their contract with the League. Through in theory they could do it without studio segments and just have the highlight packages,

[UTVLifer]

I would suspect that either Alex Scott, Jason or Gabby will be drafted in for MOTD tomorrow night… assuming it does air

[Alf Stewart]

I would suspect that either Alex Scott, Jason or Gabby will be drafted in for MOTD tomorrow night… assuming it does air

Perhaps they'll all refuse. We'll have MOTD with Rylan

[matthieu1221]

One might argue that times are changing and that the BBC's independence doesn't seem as high on this government's agenda as under previous governments.

It might not be outright control of output, but the government is effectively pushing for self-censorship which in effect is the same thing. And not even on content, but on employees' (who have nothing to do with news coverage!) personal political opinions.

EDIT: today's Attenborough story is in effect self-censorship on content

The Attenborough story that is in actual fact fake news?
Actually it is rather worrying that a supposedly impartial organisation such as the BBC would consider content made by a campaigning organisation such as the WWF to be an appropriate acquisition even if only for iPlayer.

That part is still unclear. The Guardian seems adamant that it was meant to be broadcast on linear television.

Your second point is separate. Pulling a show to avoid criticism is arguably self-censorship. Whether or not a show should be broadcast or not, in this case not, should not come down to external pressure. Either way, there needs to be some sort of official statement explaining the entire process behind why the show was acquired, the original plans for broadcast, and reasons why the show was pulled.