[matthieu1221]

Gary Lineker currently works for the BBC. Neil Oliver hasn't been a presenter on the BBC for four years.

Why should the views Oliver expresses today stop the BBC from airing an old episode of a programme he was part of over a decade ago looking into the coastline of the UK?

One of the arguments put forward against Lineker is because of his association with the BBC (aka fronting a show on it) and thus if he tweeted his political opinion it could possibly damage the BBC's reputation as an impartial broadcaster. How the same case does not apply for Neil Oliver is beyond me. Yes, yes, he's made controversial comments after he filmed Coast, but his face is still on there, being associated with the BBC as it is currently still being used on air.

Are you seriously suggesting that every single person who has ever presented anything on the BBC should feel forever unable to give their opinion on anything remotely political, no matter how long ago they last worked for the corporation, because their catalogue of work will be retrospectively treated as politically biased content which cannot in good conscience be shown from that moment on?

There you have it! So wouldn't you agree that the entire 'problem' is ridiculous isn't it?

None of the two present the news or are going to present news coverage on the BBC anytime soon. None are going to interview the Home Secretary on Newsnight anytime soon. And I suppose no one is going to question Lineker's football analysis because of his Tweets nor are people going to think that everything on Coast is factually wrong because of what Oliver's said later after he quit the BBC.

I made my point to highlight the ridiculous nature of the suspension in the first place and how, if they wanted to apply it thoroughly to everybody, would be utterly ridiculous.

In the meantime, they are exposing themselves to a lot of potential unnecessary flak by airing Coast.