[DavidWhitfield]

I have no doubt that this is correct, but I could just as easily say that the vast majority of people who are most ardently sticking up for Lineker are people who agree with his anti-government sentiments.

Look at the users defending Lineker's right to give his opinion on this site over the past few days for example. Do we really believe that these same people would have all rushed to his defence had he been pulled for breaching impartiality rules by SUPPORTING the government's strong views on immigration? Somehow I think not.

It's not a one-way street. Clearly there are biases on both sides here, which, ultimately, is going to be inevitable in any story with a political element.

If he'd supported the policy, he would never have been suspended. If he'd supported the policy, why would he have posted? 

By the time you've imagined the alternative universe where it could happen, you may as well just admit that you're trying to defend the indefensible.

He didn't support the policy so you have no way of knowing that 'he would never have been suspended' if he had. You are assuming that to be the case, which is fine and I can see why you would come to that conclusion, but it doesn't make it a fact.

My post defends neither the government nor the BBC (quite the contrary), I'm merely noting that there are biases at play on both sides of the argument. 

For what it's worth, and reiterating points  I've made previously, it seems to me that this whole situation stems from the BBC's vague and unclear rules on what they expect from their 'stars', and the inconsistent nature of the enforcement of these rules. I've seen many examples of comments made by other famous BBC faces - especially Alan Sugar - on Twitter which are undeniably political in nature - one in which Sugar out-and-out implores people not to vote for Jeremy Corbyn back in 2017 for example - and it's hard for me to understand how Gary's recent comments can be found in breach of the guidelines while previous tweets he had made along the same lines went unchecked and when tweets by others such as Alan Sugar's example above were deemed fine.

In any workplace, if rules are vague, confusing, full of loopholes, or inconsistently enforced, you're asking for trouble, and the BBC need to be absolutely clear going forward and firm up what is expected of their staff, what is not permissible, and ensure that everyone is on the same page and is treated equally no matter which side of the fence they are on. That would be true impartiality which the BBC claims to strive for.

The ball is firmly in their court - if you'll excuse the unfortunate sports metaphor - to tidy this mess up and ensure this situation can't happen again.