[James2001]

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.

Yep, you only have to look at the aformentioned cases of Alan Sugar and Andrew Neil- the latter of which was the presenter of the BBC's main political programmes while editing a hard right magazine and regularly tweeting pro-government and pro-brexit views. People can bleat hypotheticals about Gary Lineker, but when we actually have an example someone being much more overtly political on social media than Gary is actually presenting political coverage on the BBC, not just sport, and never being warned or taken off air, it's hardly suprising people come to the conclusions they do about the government leaning on the BBC.