[Stockland Hillman]

If signing an open letter calling for assylum seekers to be treated in a humanitarian way in accordance with international law (and responding to ill-informed criticism) brings the BBC into disrepute, we are pretty much screwed as a society.

That's straightforward misinformation. Taking a small part of an issue, ignoring the main factual and contextual element and then adding a dose of emotive language. That's what we're screwed as a society - the inability to discuss complex and nuanced issues without taking polarised and emotive sides.

Lineker targeted named individuals in his tweets, in apparent breach of the obligation not to, thats the concern.

The test of an argument is to swap the roles and subjects. Say a Labour gov moved to enact gender self ID at all levals and a high profile BBC presenter..say Zoe Ball signed a letter with JK Rowling expressing concern at the loss of human rights for "biological woman" (she of course wouldn't); the issue had been subject to months of debate and the legislation in Parliament that week. It had been picked up and retweeted by every TERF campaign group, Andrew Tate and Piers Morgan

Would it still be appropriate for the BBC presenter to get involved in such a debate that way?

Broadcasting is a privileged position, particularly one funded by public taxation not dependent on ability to pay. There are rules for a reason.