Lineker to return as Match of the Day host

I see the Tories are up in arms because Gary Lineker has described their latest attempt to stop people getting Asylum in this country as something akin to what the Nazis did in the 30s.

This used to be a caring compassionate country but ,under the Tories, they are the BNP in sheep's clothing. Remember how they conned people into believing that, if we didn't vote for Brexit, we would be swamped with tens of thousands of Romanians coming here, as with all their claims about Brexit – lie after lie.

Hitler convinced the German people that the Jews were responsible for all the ills of the German people, just like this lot are always blaming other people for their incompetence.

Brian 53, you are talking nonesense: the population of the UK has gone up from 50M to almost 70M in my lifetime.

We are already the most over-populated country, especially England, in Europe.

If you want our already overburdened transport systems etc to totally grind to a halt, then let's open our borders to everyone.

We have to at some stage say that enough is enough; we have reached that point in my opinion.

I think it's his employers, Brian, from what I watched this morning. The ones who have made him the highest paid presenter on their payroll, I believe. Looks like he's getting a warning.

I often wish footballers would stay out of their bailiwick in public forums. Fine, have an opinion, but know what you're talking about first.

Forgetting my personal views, but there is a difference between attempting to control an issue that no one really has an answer to and one that all of Europe is struggling to deal with, not just the UK.

As opposed to a systematic and sinister plan to victimise and deport millions to slave and death camps to deliberately work them practically to the bone, then murder millions of them rendered worthless, based on religion, ethnicity, sexual preferences and because they opposed and resisted.

Give your head a wobble and think before you tweet, Mr Linekar. There is no context or comparison. Stick to what you know.

UK population is hovering around 68 million.

Nearly 85% of that is is England. Most of that crammed in, around and the M62. Almost 9 million are in London. If you include Wales alongside England, that's about 90%.

Northern Ireland's population is similar to Merseyside last time I looked.

Raymond @55,

I am not saying that everybody who comes here should be allowed to stay, but this is a blanket ban on everybody coming to this country.

Someone said this morning that Mo Farah who has won 8 gold medals in Olympics for this country, but under this system arriving as he did he would have been deported.

We have massive job vacancies in many areas of the economy, especially in the NHS and care homes. Also there are no safe legal routes by which you can claim asylum before entering the country. Maybe there wouldn't be people risking their lives on small boats if there were safe and legal routes.

Danny, I think it is your head that needs a wobble.

Lineker can say anything he wants - it's a free country. His employer will do nothing about it, as it is not of their business nor will he have breached his employment contract by speaking on this topic.

This is straight out of the Trump playbook. Dehumanise a segment of humanity and then amp the rhetoric to inflame the population. Next step is to announce a simplistic plan that is bound to fail - build a wall, stop the boats - without any thought on its workability and hope is sticks if the lies are repeated enough.

Here are a few facts to chew over with your cornflakes a) We have a booklog of 160,000 in asylum claims and insufficient staff to process them b) 80,000 refugees will arrive this year yet not a single detention centre has been completed to house them before they are “expelled” c) Rwanda has committed to taking 200 refugees which leaves 79,800 with nowhere to go, nowhere to house them and no home office staff to process them d) Less than 1% of those claiming asylum have had their claims processed.

Apparently, Tory MPs already know this won't work and expect Braverman to resign in 6 months claiming her plans were thwarted by political forces. As for the voters, recheck the Brexit playbook of lies and ask yourself how that played out.

Perhaps you should also stick to what you know.

So Steve, what about the fact that the people arriving on boats from France are leaving a safe country to risk getting to the UK? Surely the prolem lies with the better "deal" arrivees will get in the UK than in France.

Also, there is a difference between folk fleeing the Taliban, after working for the West and fearing persecution, and people coming from Albania aiming to join mates here in the Black economy.

The government have had 13 years, and the utter shambles that we now observe is a result of under-investment in the Border Force and in holding centres capable of meeting the demand.

In a country where the indigenous people are suffering from energy hikes, a lack of housing with young people unable to afford rents or mortgages, is it not understandable that there will be resentment of our meagre resouces being spent on people from abroad when so many here are struggling?

As for Brexit, there were lies on both sides of that debate.

Sorry if I touched a nerve, Steve. I was just engaging in the debate.

Freedom of speech is a hard-fought-for thing and should not be abused. Lineker stepped over the mark in making totally unrealistic comparisons with two completely different topics. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say what you want if it strays into abuse and, in this case, lack of context or knowledge. Then you are talking Donald Trump.

Immigration issues versus Nazi death camps. I don't get it. Maybe you can explain it to me.

I am talking about what I know. Do I know everything? No. Who does?

I can only speak from experience. And I have dealt first hand with desperate people in desperate conditions in countries that were torn apart by conflict who just wanted a better life. So I am not whatsoever averse to helping and supporting people get that better life. Seeing those desperate people as we pulled out of Afghanistan left a bitter taste and broke my heart.

But it's quite clear there is a global problem. All of Europe are struggling to deal with it. Italy are letting it pass like water through a tap. France are passing the buck and shifting it on. Germany take people in but then had a policy of putting then in former UK & US military bases whilst they processed them, which didn't happen quickly and had guards on the gates. Pretty much detention centres.

Further afield, I believe Australia has the harshest system. Mandatory detention and offshore processing for all asylum seekers who arrive without a valid Visa.

The Trump jibe is a bit below the belt Steve to be honest mate. It's a global problem and one that the European nations, not just the UK are struggling to contain. It's often best to try to fix at source in my opinion.

The world has always been a place of migration and immigration. I don't think anyone wants to stop that. I don't. It's made the UK and other countries what they are.

But right now, these poor people are paying a lot of money to profiteering criminal gangs to be put in harm's way and at risk to life. Target the gangs and concurrently try to provide support to the countries from where they are coming from, as in my experience, most people would rather remain at home.

I will finish on saying I am glad to be on the side of possibly our greatest goalkeeper and one of our best ever midfield players, Neville Southall and Peter Reid who both tweeted their agreement to Lineker's comments.

Expressing an opinion doesn't make you a political judge.

Brian #59,

"We have massive job vacancies in many areas of the economy, especially in the NHS and care homes. "

Because the stupid fcukers decided to sack everyone who didn't want to have a vaccination.

No sympathy from me.

Andrew, I agree, just read Merloos on mendicide which he based on the Nazi 'propaganda' machine.

And Andrew, there's another word that is used in a different context to its original meaning which was 'information'.

Okay Dale, I guess my point is that the comparison Linekar made between the current issue and the historical tragedy was off the mark in my opinion.

Some express an opinion that the Holocaust didn't happen.

Of course everyone is entitled to freedom of speech and an opinion. But it doesn't give you the right to say what you want. That is when you are straying into Trump territory.

Especially when you are in a position of privilege and responsibility. That's why the BBC has taken the action it has.

Large parts of Pakistan and much of the south of Afghanistan speak Pashto / Pashtun Eric. Pashtunwali is very interesting. You can be an enemy, but if they take you in, they will protect you and look after you.

Steve: "nor will he have breached his employment contract by speaking on this topic."

Not so sure about that. A lot of employment contracts are focused on you not making your employers look bad. These days it extends to looking at your social media platforms and if you said something misogynistic or antisemitic 40 years ago you can be sacked. Even if your views might have changed in the meantime.

Eddie: "So Steve, what about the fact that the people arriving on boats from France are leaving a safe country to risk getting to the UK? Surely the prolem lies with the better "deal" arrivees will get in the UK than in France."

I put myself in the shoes of a refugee that has just gotten out of a shithole situation and find myself in the nearest safe country. My family are with me and we're all safe and although it's not great I'm a damn sight better off than where I just came from and I'm almightily thankful for that.

So what makes me decide that I really must cross the entirety of Europe, just to get to England?

Eric, your better deal argument falls flat by the much higher numbers of these people that France settles vs the UK.

Andrew, so why are they arriving in UK in dinghy?

As Danny said "Target the gangs and concurrently try to provide support to the countries from where they are coming from, as in my experience, most people would rather remain at home.

So why the move across Europe to a completely different culture? Who is driving this?

Put the following into YouTube. Interesting.
And possibly illuminating in this present debate.

‘Lee Anderson, MP, questions Albanian Ambassador in the Home Affairs Select Committee'

Is this the one where he wiped the floor with him Ray? but the Albanian ambassador, is some politician though, mate, and his audacity is definitely in the Bill Kenwright bracket!

Tony @92,

Yes, Tony, the Ambassador had no answer to him, and for all the bleeding heart Liberals banging on about the ‘refugees' in small boats, just watch that video. We're allowing criminals into this country, and paying them for the privilege.

Bill #78, not just Commonwealth countries.

“The BBC has decided that he [Gary Lineker] will step back from presenting Match of the Day until we've got an agreed and clear position on his use of social media.

“When it comes to leading our football and sports coverage, Gary is second to none. We have never said that Gary should be an opinion free zone, or that he can't have a view on issues that matter to him, but we have said that he should keep well away from taking sides on party political issues or political controversies.”

Shame the BBC didn't have the same qualms with a variety of political issues aired during the World Cup or indeed in quite a lot of its coverage of sport. I would understand if Lineker or any presenter had aired their views on the BBC platform, but as a private citizen he is entitled to have a view, aired on social media, whether it's popular or not.

Bowing to politicians 'outrage' is unforgivable and will only encourage those types to close down public scrutiny. It would have been much preferred if there had been a healthy debate between the various parties, rather than punish an outspoken individual.

Barry 103, correct, The Daily Mail will be having celebration cocktails this evening at the Groucho, “haw haw we've shown the oiks who's in charge here”

Barry,

thanks. The word hypocrisy and the phrase, when it suits come zipping into mind when the BBC make such utterances.

The barefaced brainwashing, agenda-pushing, personal hit-jobs and other specialities are fine when it's on their terms, in their way.

Peter @ 100,

Exactly - but that concept doesn't suit and has been edited out. Ditto sticks and stones...

Barry, I will have to respectfully disagree with that post.

Lineker has compared the Govt. to The Third Reich

The Govt is trying to stop the boats which are used by people traffickers charging each person Thousands of Pounds for the journey. Stopping the traffickers
They are exploiting people for money, undeniable fact, and 'customers' may die on the journey. But they get treated properly when they land

The Third Reich killed/ murdered lots of people, Undeniable fact. there was no welcome or proper treatment.

I am not defending the Govt or it's policy, as for the past
20 years it has been as compotent as the EFC board. However Lineker needs a talking to

Lineker should have known better he's a sports broadcaster not a political analysis as exampled by his dullard choice of words.

If he felt compelled to get involved he could have made his point by simply saying he disagreed with govt policy but he went in studs showing and is now suffering the backlash.

The rights or wrongs of the issue are incidental he made a bad decision by getting stuck in the manner he did and as others have mentioned his involvement in the Qatar WC means any high horse he jumps on is greeted with scorn.

James,

there is of course the question of degree, but the BBC has no qualms labelling ordinary British citizens as "far right" and anarchist extremists should they dare to peacefully protest.

I think Lineker has become a tit personally and his comments are ludicrous, but it's the hypocrisy that grates.

The profiting from trafficking angle is bit of a hot potato for the "government", as the system wants the immigrants in.

like all the beeb gang he had all his kids locked up in the most expensive schools money could buy, and is at the centre of every tax dodging vehicle known to man. Not satisfied with enormous privilege and wealth he also wants to hold the moral high ground as well by lecturing everybody no 'what the decent thing to do' is.
He's the latest example of the narcissism and hypocrisy coursing through our public life.

Kevin,

social media tempts them all out. Few seem able to resist.

Will
yes, very true.They are like moths to a flame.

Not sure who posted 113 - but well said. And Nice to see at least a couple of Lineker's colleagues (Wright & Shearer) showing support.

@113

If the MP you are castigating had parents who " benefited from legal migration channels" surely that is a different issue to allowing immigrants wanting to enter the UK illegally?

Not sure I hold great store in such surveys but the Express newspaper conducted a poll asking if Lineker should be sacked and 85% want him gone and that was a response from 44k !!

The BBC has been in this Governments pockets for years now Threatened by Nadine Dorisse on licence fees if they didn't tow the Tory line and the current Director General has been bankrolling the Tories to the tune of £250,000 (GUARDIAN)
at least.They have sanctioned commentators and got rid of Paxman,Neil and anyone who criticised them.

James Hughes

Lineker referred to German policy on immigration in the 1930s specifically. At that time the Germans were "encouraging" Jews to immigrate out of Germany. It was before the holocaust so I think Lineker is likening it to that is based on it being an emigration policy based on exclusion. That said. It's not a very good analogy as the Germans were kicking people out rather than stopping them from coming in. And obviously, as has happened, people think of the Third Reich and recall what followed after the period Lineker referred to.

That being said, on Lineker's freedom of speech. Last year, I think it may have been Jonathon Agnew? But one of the BBC cricket commentators posted on Twitter that he is not allowed to make political posts per BBC employee policy and questioned as to why Lineker constantly did. So there has been a long running view that Lineker gets special treatment.

Lineker is an absolute bell end who spouts crap on his twitter feed, but I really think that's his right. Free speech and all that. He doesn't actually work for the BBC, unless you believe the Inland Revenue who reckon he's dodged £4.5m in tax.

Anyway, the good news is we don;t have to put up with Shearer and Wright talking bollocks on MOTD tomorrow night. I;m just praying that Micah Richards quits too, then I won't have to fast forward quite so much.

Barry@115
If you had a referendum on illegal immigrants/ refugees you would probably get a similar outcome to keep them out whilst the majority of them would vote for the real problem in a general election

Barry @115.

The issue is exactly the same. My ancestors came to this country legally from Ireland over a century ago to escape economic hardship. Braverman's parents did exactly the same more recently. Their avenue is no longer an option. Braverman attacks people who try to get here without that chance but ignores the fact they have no alternative.

As for a Daily Express poll... well people who read that rag are hardly inclined to think that immigrants benefit this country. And don't forget that the person who owned that paper in the 30s was an active fascist advocate, so if I subscribed to his opinion then I'd be more likely to read that paper myself.

Good riddance to the arrogant twerp.

Paul, without wishing to get into an argument, of course there is still a legal avenue to enter the country like my ancestors and yours did.

Last year over half a million people came here to work, study and live, with full permission to do so. Most people, including the Labour party, want to stop people traffickers exploiting people and putting them in mortal danger by sticking them on dodgy boats.

Kieran #117..Really? Then Alan Sugar must be on a secret list.

Michael @122. Fully agree about something needing to be done about the conmen who take huge sums of money from people and put them on those dodgy boats. Stena Line have got away with it for far too long.

Michael 122

You beat me to it.

The urban myth no avenue for legal entry into the UK exists is just plain wrong.

Micheal @ 118, seems you have your wish.

Micah Richards (via BBC Sport website) :

"I was not due to be working on MOTD tomorrow, but if I was, I would find myself taking the same decision that @IanWright0 & @alanshearer have." (he wrote on Twitter).

"IF I was." Now that's what you call milking it. Frank Doberman, eat your heart out.

Barry, the legal method is nowhere near fast enough for the agenda.

Government doing its damnedest to lay all this on the "Traffickers".

Will 127

That's a different debate. Saying no avenue exists is simply false

I also was not due to be presenting Motd tomorrow, but if I was I would have to give things very serious consideration.

To avoid any bias there are rumours that Nigel Farage is presenting MOTD tomorrow, with the Haunted Pencil standing in for Shearer.

Paul

100 years ago, Ireland was just getting independence so people there had until then been part of the British empire. Likewise, Suella Bannerman's parents came from Kenya and Mauritius in the 60s when both were still in the Empire. So legally people had a different status than the illegal immigrants being discussed. I am not opposed to immigration but I think there needs to be an orderly process for a multitude of reasons. The reason Britain attracts large numbers of illegal immigrants is because it is viewed as a better place to live than other nations. Britain has a quarter of all the illegal immigrants in Europe. Geographically its slightly larger than Romania but smaller than France, Spain, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Norway, Poland and Italy. So equitably, these other countries should take on a larger share of illegal/legal immigrants as they have more room. If the illegal immigrants are legitimate refugees from wars etc then Norway is much better than where every they have left behind. But the rest of Europe are happy to funnel them through to Britian especially since we left the EEU. It's not humane. If they are legit refugees then give them the support they need and equitably house them wherever.

I agree, Barry - and for clarity, I haven't said that.

Of course, anything can be addressed at any time if prudent, including legal positions.

Brian @ 124, that's a good one.

Kevin, same ;-)

Tony, who is the Haunted Pencil?!

Tony #130... indeed..and Farage to do a Motson style interview outside Dover FC with David Icke fronting MOTD with analysis from Peter Shilton and Matthew Le Tissier

Will

Jermaine Jenas ruled himself out too. Mystic Meg is out of the picture also.

Kieran.
"The reason Britain attracts large numbers of illegal immigrants is because it is viewed as a better place to live than other nations "
What other nations in Europe are you specifically referring to as most Asylum seekers don't travel to the UK and prefer other countries

Will, Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Kieran, what you suggest might be sensible, but the EU can't even work out a fair way to distribute refugees amongst themselves. I can't see the UK offering to take a split with them as a deal. Also, although we might have a lot of 'illegal immigrants' in the sense that they came here on small boats or were smuggled in, the avenues for some immigrants are limited. Can they apply for asylum in the UK from France? I'm guessing not. I think we have to make applying for refugee status in the UK relatively straightforward from any other country, and then put some sort of limit on the number we will take that is fair to our neighbours. The problem with this is there aren't enough votes to be gained from it. I think Lineker was right to criticise the government's language because it's dangerous. Nazi Germany didn't appear overnight, and the language they used to dehumanise groups of people was one of the things that helped them take power. We can always say that couldn't happen here, but that is to say that there is something innately worse about German people than us when humans are all more or less the same.

Kieran,

just read that now. There'll be no MOTD soon...

Stephen

I am referring to the other countries in Europe including Spain, France, Norway, Italy, Poland etc. Germany gets more illegal immigrants than England but it is a) much larger geographically and b) has a population 30 percent larger than the UK so can accommodate more.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/11/13/four-countries-account-for-the-majority-of-europes-unauthorized-immigrant-population/

Spain has 100-200, 000 compared with Britain's 800k to 1.2 million. France is third place behind Britain despite being larger but it has half as many illegal immigrants as Britain.

As every pundit seems to be turning down Saturdays MOTD, any truth in the story that Everton's Board will be filling in for Lineker, Shearer & co this weekend?
Rumour has it that the BBC hierarchy asked themselves “what would Everton do?” then realised the Fab Four would be free this weekend as they don't attend home games anymore. Job done.

John Cook@116

Andrew Neil initially left the BBC to join the then new GB News which is widely regarded as right of centre, and he is chairman of the Spectator which is also firmly right of centre.

Jeremy Paxman resigned as anchorman of BBC2's Newsnight entirely on his own volition and continued as the long serving host of University Challenge right up to present series, at the end of which he will be regrettably standing down due to the onset of Parkinson's Disease.

Next time check your facts or better still, keep your politics off a football forum.

Solidarity with Lineker.

What are the odds on Everton beating Brentford 7-0 and not even being on last on motd? That would be so typical of Everton.

This country is vastly overpopulated at the moment. We simply can't afford to keep taking everybody in.

I see that the poison dwarf is in his corner. Maybe she will get him a job on Scottish TV.

May I suggest you read Robert Winder's book, Bloody Foreigners, Paul? This “overcrowding” argument has been used for at least the last 500 years eg Huguenots, Irish, Jews, West Indians, Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis and now it's this latest wave of immigrants who are “swamping” us.

It's a myth that we are overpopulated. Immigrants are a new and vital source of labour, taxes, innovation, creativity etc… no country on earth can survive without immigration. Unless of course you are happy with an ageing population.

The debate should not be about whether you agree with Lineker (I do). The debate should be about whether you think it's ok for him to be quietened by the BBC (I don't). I am pretty indifferent to almost anyone who is on MOTD, except perhaps Danny Murphy who I still have the energy to dislike, but personally I'm really angry about what has happened. Not surprised, just angry. Will channel it into my support in the stands tomorrow.

Match of the Day will be broadcast without any presenters or pundits this weekend I can visualise record numbers watching, in the knowledge that there are no pundits to annoy them. I wonder if without the inane chit-chat, the episode will be considerably shorter in length? About half-an-hour should do to cover the footy.

MOTD has no presenters or pundits tomorrow night. Impressive solidarity from the presenters. I'm amazed Teary Bill didn't throw his hat in the ring. He's got nothing better to do tomorrow, has he?

Colin I don't mind the migrants coming over if they have jobs. It's the ones that don't that bother me.

Praise be to the lord, no presenters, no pundits. I'll miss Lineker because I think he's very good as a link-man, but the rest of those overpaid, boring mediocrities can do one.

Surely everyone fast forwards through the chat on MOTD now? I can't remember the last time I listened to any of the half time bollocks on Sky and BT live games either. Maybe if Everton are playing.

Paul, it's an emotional, and complicated, issue. It's nigh on impossible to enter this country with a job offer unless you are in that elite group of nerds who are in the genius class. Farmers can't even hire farmhands to work on their land to feed us.

I agree that criminals and beggars should be kicked out but the vast majority want to work and earn a decent living.

Lineker has every right to tweet on his personal Twitter as do tories like Le Tissier and Lampard.

Btw, I think motd will be much better without presenters.

'We're all about impartiality and free speech, yada yada' - as long as it's the sort of 'free speech and Impartiality' that we've been told by 'Them' is OK.

Paul Hewitt, the problem is that asylum seekers aren't allowed to work until their application is processed. That's 2-3 years at the moment. That means that they're being taught not to work at the taxpayers' expense. Paying British workers to sort out the backlog and getting these people working quickly would be a proper solution than slogans, in my view.

Have to say, there's something really amusing about the idea of having MOTD with no presenters. It's what many have been asking for for donkey's years.

Paul #152..What bothers you about Refugees ? ( who aren't legally allowed to work until their application is processed)

Colin, I don't think that's strictly true. There were over a quarter of a million work-related visas handed out last year, which is the highest in a long time.

Obviously Brexit changed things, as instead of having an unlimited supply of European workers who didn't need a visa, we instead started taking people from all around the world, but all of them need visas now.

Anyway, I don't think all of the quarter of a million foreign workers were elite nerds.

Otherwise, I agree with everything you say - free speech for all and no pundits on MOTD works for me.

"It's a myth that we are overpopulated. Immigrants are a new and vital source of labour, taxes, innovation, creativity etc… no country on earth can survive without immigration. Unless of course you are happy with an ageing population."

So I guess a lot of countries are being destroyed or developmentally stunted by a combination of their losing emigrants (lately, overwhelmingly productive age males) and not having immigration of their own, then?

It doesn't matter whether that book is wholly true by some measures, Colin. There comes a level at which there is no need for more people.

There are many ways to express what is the "ideal" target population for a country, depending on what longer term future is desired. I wonder what that is?

Stephen @159. You do know these refugees pass numerous countries to get to us. They know we are a soft touch.

"Farmers can't even hire farmhands to work on their land to feed us."

Well that won't be a problem soon; there'll be many less farms. See The Netherlands, second largest food exporter in the world, and look what their "government" and the WEF are doing to them.

Stuart @ 158,

the uncomfortable truth!

I might even watch it again, online, if there were no talking heads.

Kieran #140
Interesting. In the interest of balance can you post the figures for Refugees as opposed to 'illegal immigrants '.
Thanks

Paul, this is a never ending argument that we'll never agree on but at least we can agree on us getting three points tomorrow? Or are we so far down the rabbit hole we can't even agree on that?

Paul #162.
Yes I do thanks...I think I know what you're getting at...but to avoid confusion can I ask what point you are trying to make?
Thanks

I've said this before: One of the reasons I love this site is the unexpected directions that discussions can take, and how much there is to learn from them.

Sorry I missed it!

It's not overpopulated up here. I spend way too much time explaining to English tourists why places are only open part of the week if at all...

Stuart # 158] Agree. MOTD could actually be worth watching (for a change). Of course this being a BBC programme, don't rule out an 11th hour change of plan that would see them bringing in one of their vast stable of appalling presenters from other programmes e.g. Paddy McGuinness, ‘Freddie' Flintoff, Tess Daly, the odd looking bloke from Bake Off or even Rylan Clark Neal.

It'll be Farage, Mike 🙂🙂

Stephen

My post was specifically about Illegal immigrants which is why I used that term since it's illegal immigrants the government are talking about. Refugees would include both legal and illegal immigrants plus temporarily displaced. But for the record the UN released a report this year based on 2021 that excluded Ukrainians as they envisaged them as temporarily displaced. The report had Poland having 8,000 refugeees compared with UK 230,000. Italy had around 170,000, Spain about 100,000, Bulgaria a few thousand. The only countries with more than the UK in Europe were Germany, France, Sweden and Turkey. All of which are geographically larger. But again my point was about illegal immigrants not refugees of all kinds.

Kieran.
The Govt uses the term ' illegal immigrants ' instead of Asylum seekers ( something which is pertinent to what Gary Lineker is talking)
As you are probably aware anyone seeking asylum in this country are not illegal until deemed so after there asylum application is processed as per the UN Convention and the only way to claim Asylum is to actually land in the UK.
Whats interesting is that France has previously offered to accept the construction of an Asylum Processing Centre in Calais where applicants can be processed on French soil...a project that would significantly reduce any asylum seeker crossing the Channel,as there would not be any legitimate cause to do so This offer has been turned down by this Govt.
There has also been no plan to target the people smugglers,none whatsoever.
Immigration and Asylum seekers is a convenient diversion for this Govt and takes the focus off the Shi*show they have made of governing this country.
Lineker is correct they use inflammatory language ('illegal immigrants' and they know damn well that they are doing)

Kieran, I don't think the UN would make that distinction now. Poland has accepted more than 1.7 million Ukrainian refugees. It seems inevitable now that many will not return.

Stephen

I haven't lived in the UK for 20 years so didn't catch that “illegal” is divisive I was understanding it at face value as a distinction between legal and others. But the point is that other European countries accept proprtionately less immigrants whether asylum seekers or not. Specifically central, southern and East European countries.

There are (Twitter) rumours that the match day commentators might walk out in solidarity with Lineker. No motd then. Auntie beeb have shot themselves in the foot.

I am going to try not to mention politics although it effects everything in our lives, so I will stick to MOTD.

I can't stand Lineker, think Wright and Shearer are boring and am sick and tired of hearing Micah's silly laugh on every sports programme I listen to. Murphy is intelligent but another Red and depressingly deadpan.

Dion Dublin is thick, Sutton annoying, Savage ignorant and stupid etc, etc.

I no longer watch MOTD because of these views.

I was delighted to watch us on Amazon recently because they had an option to mute the commentary and just leave the crowd noise. It was great. I recognised all of the players and wasn't irritated by commentary or the inane remarks of Mc Coist, who I hear won something at the Radio awards thingy.

I think Lineker is entitled to his opinion, even though it might be at odds with his BBC contract, but I disagree with him and find his input another example of virtue-signaling.

I really don't need a multi-millionaire who has made a lot of money selling crisps, whose packets will be in the landfill sites for a thousand years and the subject of Timeteam programmes in the distant future lecturing me on anything other than his specialist subject of football.

If Shearer, Wright, Richards (who wasn't scheduled to be on anyway), and Lineker won't do MOTD then may I suggest our very own Neville Southall.

The big man will put Gary's bleatings right in the shade, but the license fee will be better spent and the show will be worth watching.

Well done to Lineker, Shearer and Wrighty for making a stand on this. The BBC have screwed this up completely. Didn't their chairman arrange a 𧿘k loan for Boris?

They have dug themselves a hole so sit it in it. Kind of reminds me of a certain football board.

Perhaps Suella Braverman can present it next week. She can interview one of the sex-trafficked women she now plans to deport, or go live to Heathrow as they put Mo Farah on a plane back to Somalia.

Danny @ 62, you didn't touch a nerve. I just thought you were talking nonsense so called you on it.

I am sure the government would be delighted if football commentators ‘stayed in their lane' and did not speak up on child hunger or refugees.

Thankfully, they are taking a stand. Rashford won the MBE for his stance on child poverty, but you were continuing on another thread inferring that his drop in form was due to his charitable efforts.

There was me thinking it was due to playing for a dysfunctional club, with lazy players and a succession of crap managers.

“ Leading match commentators at the corporation including Steve Wilson, Simon Brotherton, Conor McNamara and Robyn Cowen also said they would not be taking part in the show.

The programme could still use some form of commentary usually provided for broadcasts outside the UK.”

Comedy.

BBC Chairman Richard Sharp - donated £400,000 to the Tories and arranged a £800,000 loan for Boris.

Sir Robbie Gibb - BBC Board member and former Communications Director for Theresa May.

BBB Director General Tom Davie- former Deputy Chairman of the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative Party.

Yep, it all makes sense.

Bowing to politicians 'outrage' is unforgivable and will only encourage those types to close down public scrutiny. It would have been much preferred if there had been a healthy debate between the various parties, rather than punish an outspoken individual.

There's already a precedent, where have you been for the last three years Barry #103?

Steve Brown

“BBB Director Tom Davie” fucking Tom pops up in every thread. No wonder he's useless if he's moonlighting at the BBC.

One aspect of the people making boat crossings into England that doesn't get much attention is that a lot of them aren't asylum seekers per se. And no I'm not talking about gangsters and crooks. I watched this French documentary in Africa A lot of them are people who are not oppressed but just very poor in Guinea and Senegal particularly “recruiters” seek them out telling them the streets of London are paved with gold. They muster their meager resources to pay their “fare” then get passed off onto other people sometimes Taureg nomads who then pass them onto jihadist linked criminal groups in Algeria, Libya etc then these groups extort their relatives back in Guinea for more money and set them off in flimsy boats only for them to drown, get arrested or end up finding low paid illegal employment in Europe and.using all their cash to payoff the smugglers still extorting their families. It's the same thing that happens to Moldovan girls offered “jobs” then sex trafficked. So these individuals go from having a hard life to something much worse. We've done a good job in England tackling terrorist cells. But the same effort and money hasn't gone into stopping smugglers who entice the naive to come here in addition to those actually facing life or death situations in their home lands.

There are now NGO groups with numerous survivors back in Senegal and Guinea doing their best to tell other naive young people it's all a scam and life at home while hard is better than what they've gone through. Mauritania (where Slavery was only criminalize recently) was a big country fir this too but under duress from Spain they've now started to crack down when offered the carrot of EU investment

Linaker and friends are so vain that they think that fans tune in to MOTD to listen to them. The Beeb should tell them that they are no longer needed, then change the format to more football and less bullshit.

Ed

It pains me to say it but I thought the RS duo of Hansen and Lawrenson offered more analysis versus flippant opinion you get from Shearer et al. Des Lynam was also a proper host versus Lineker. I'd prefer they just had the highlights narrated but some non melodramatic Ray Stubbs and cut these so called pundit's altogether

Call it nonsense if you like, Steve.

I gave a view that Lineker was ill-judged, in my opinion, to draw comparisons with the current migration situation and the deliberate transportation of peoples to concentration and death camps.

I also commented on poverty I've witnessed first hand.

Well, Lineker, the ٟ.3M year earning presenter, has certainly caused a stink regardless. Maybe we won't have to worry about which order we feature in the Match of the Day as it seems there is no-one to present it!

On Rashford, I again simply made the view that he now seems more focussed on his football and you are seeing the difference. We've been having a similar debate about Dominic on another thread. Of course footballers do good things and have other interests outside of the game. It's about striking that balance.

Anyway, enough of my nonsence. It's matchday and I'll be heading for Goodison in a couple of hours. Hopefully Dominic is fit enough to feature in some capacity and make my long journey home (well sleep) a happy one.

I'll put a final stake in this ground on this one and leave it.

Reluctantly agree on the Hansen-Lawrenson combination.

There is a difference between free speech and opinion versus saying what the hell you like even though it hasn't been thought through.

Lineker and his followers can bleat all they like. No-one is indispensable, as Andy Gray found out, and as we all know in our various walks of everyday life.

“There is a difference between free speech and opinion versus saying what the hell you like even though it hasn't been thought through.”

Indeed there is, Danny, as your posts on the Lineker situation amply demonstrate.

Back to Square one – now where did that come from? Oh yes, it was a means of describing a visual sport on a 'new' (for then) non-visual technology.

When the even newer visual technology came along, the radio voice-over guy kept his job because the picture wasn't all that hot and it was sometimes (as Real found out to their cost) hard to tell your Gravesens from your Carsleys so to speak... and like Topsy – it just growed.

Lineker is both right and wrong and a bit of a twat to boot; the BBC is wrong but right and full of pricks – rs pricks, tory pricks and general pricks.

I reluctantly back Lineker.

How far will it go? How much does Lineker want... or need his Job? Who will blink first?

Meanwhile, the boats still come, people could still drown, the French mentally shrug and go through the motions. Sunak offers to throw 𧺘M at them and it's all – that will do nicely.

All for a children's game with a pig's bladder.

Strange days indeed.

Over the past 18 months, I've found the Premier League to be excruciatingly boring. Even Manchester City I find tiresome with their constant side passing. The punditry and commentary is tedious and mainly banal. So when I watch, the mute button goes on.

So, not enjoying the current football or the pundits, I was searching for some alternative and discovered The Big Match Revisited on ITVX. These are ITV's MotD equivalent shows that were broadcast on Sunday afternoons. They seem to start from 1974. That's nearly 50 years ago lads!

Remember those days we would wear our hair long, wore flares and on Saturday afternoons wrap our EFC scarves around our wrists, think we were hard, and strut to our usual Gwladys Street spot.

But back to The Big Match Revisited. It's fantastic. The highlights are much longer and I find the football refreshingly more entertaining than the Premier League.

In my mind, I had believed the Premier League product was superior to all that had gone before. It's just great to see those muddy pitches of the '70s, the crunching tackles, and hardly any sideways passing. The football is always trying to be moved forward and I have really been entertained by it.

There is no rolling about in feigned agony. No clutching of the face when arm-tickled by an opponent. Conversely, it seems a badge of dishonour to stay down after any tackle. And it seems shin pads were for wimps.

Players like Brian Kidd were 18 or 19 and in their first season of football. Frank Worthington always looks class. Alan Whittle, now of Crystal Palace, looks very ordinary. Seeing Alan Ball in an Arsenal shirt is still sad.

Many of those in the prime of their youth are now sadly gone. Seeing the teenage and hirsute Butch Wilkins of Chelsea, I found quite poignant. He might have been the same age as me.

I've seen Everton three times on The Big Match Revisited and each time they've been beaten. What a surprise! Well actually it should have been, as each time the pre-match introduction tells the viewers we are either top of the league, or, in with a shout.

What halcyon days to be disappointed when we only came 4th. Funnily, even in our lofty position, we still seem to be the last on the programme.

Barry Davis is the urbane commentator. Then he rushes back to the studio to interview managers like Malcolm Alison on a comfy sofa. The managers are so refreshingly honest, open and entertaining. Not like today in front of that odious advertising screen splurting corporate talk and unable to express an honest assessment.

The players too are invited to the studio. A great one is a sulky Charlie George telling Barry why he had put a transfer request in to Arsenal. Again, you would never get that today.

So guys, tonight it seems there is no MotD punditry, so use the opportunity to get those moth-eaten scarves and flares out the wardrobe and tune in to The Big Match Revisited.

I think the commentators and presenters who are striking to support Lineker should make it very clear that this is a free speech issue, rather than them supporting the content of Lineker's tweets.

Lineker shouldn't be bound by the same – important – impartiality rules that govern the BBC's political coverage. He should be free to tweet whatever he wants, whether it is calling the Government Nazis, or saying they should send every immigrant home. Neither of those opinions should get him sacked, however stupid they are.

The BBC have messed up by not having a clear and agreed policy, that all employees and contractors abide by.

Shame about no commentators on MotD, but not about the lack of pundits. I hope the BBC will now revamp the format to exclude them permanently.

So there's to be no BBC commentators on MotD tonight, so why not have some alternative commentators, like some fans from each club! Now that would be fun!

Surely there are enough former Liverpool players who could do MotD? Thommo, Macca, Fowler, Jimmy Case etc…. The sports media is full of them so why not use them?

Only two certainties here:

1. In a year's time, there will be more of my hard-earned taxes wasted on performative nonsense that makes no attempt to solve the 'immigration crisis'.

2. Lineker will be presenting the footy on Sky/BT for more money than he's on right now.

Danny #189,

Lineker didn't say any of those things. He compared, quite accurately and factually, the language of today's UK government with that of the 1930s German govovernment.

I have no problem with Shilton telling me personally on Twitter that I should 'back Boris or leave the country', or Boycott saying 'we got through the war, we'll get through Brexit' on the telly. Unlike Lineker's statement, neither of them are rooted in fact.

Lineker is a freelance, not a BBC employee. Was he ill-advised? Quite possibly. Maybe he's simply had enough, and feels the need to speak out, regardless of whether he stays at the BBC.

Hope you have a good trip and see the win we all deserve today.

BBC banging on about "impartiality".

Dont make me laugh.

Colin 196, what about the dynamic duo of McAteer and Phil Babb?

John Burns... respect!

I agree with every single word.
If we put the actual issue of Gary speaking out, to one side, I think this is great news. I abhor MotD as it is basically a goals round-up, plus a load of anodyne cobblers from the pundits.

I exclude Ian Wright... when he started he was plain annoying but he has mellowed and talks sense.

But Shearer? Murphy? Keown? Fof fuck's sake.

It's out there on YouTube. Match of the Day from 1967, 45 minutes of us taking Man Utd apart. No horseshit from pundits telling us what we've just seen.

As you say, John... BMR always manages to show us getting beat. But hey ho.

Match of the Day match coverage tonight:

Link

Mike,

If you enjoy this eclectic mix of views, you would have loved the debates in the When Skies Are Grey fanzine.

A regular topic was as to why there was a dearth of white dogshit in those days.

Alan (201) here's another footballer supporter who agree with you and John Burns, except I very, very rarely watch MotD so I won't miss it but when I watch football on TV I never have the sound on, unless I'm in a pub then I can't switch it off.

Who wants to listen to these pundits giving their opinions about something we can see and decide for ourselves especially those who share little jokes(?) about themselves, boring bastards, that's when, foolishly, I did listen to them.

Give me those days when David Coleman and “They think it's all over” were commentating. They talked a lot less and let you watch, just adding a bit of common sense now and again.

Watching from afar, its abhorrent to see the UK government take a few leaves out of Australia's Conservative manifesto, "Stop the Boats" from Tony Abbot (ex PM, must be some relation to Russ Abbot?):

"Never let them ever set foot in Australia if they arrive by boat..." Another gem: "Send them to Naru or Manus Island detention centres (camps) for offshore processing, with the proviso they will never set foot in Australia, no matter what."

Quick flit back over the channel and same chant... Stop the boats! Send to Rwanda, Make them illegal.

So I did some checking.…

First off, the UK is a signatory of the Refugee Convention which each member has agreed to abide by the detail.

According, I quote, from Freemovement.org.uk,

"Article 31 of the Convention protects refugees against prosecution for illegal entry to a receiving country:

The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."

So, coming over in a boat is not illegal provided they immediately on landing surrender themselves to authorities.

Secondly, they cannot send them back to a "safe country". When the UK was in the EU, they could ship refugees back to first port of processing, ie, Italy – that was an EU administration process – but as we are no longer in the EU they can rightly say "No thanks."

And a refugee is under no obligation to claim refugee status in the first safe country he or she lands in; under the same convention, they have a freedom of choice to choose which country they want to go to.

Good isn't it?

All the bullshit in the press, all the government outrage, they are trying to ignore the Refugee Convention because they have no legal way of stopping refugees, other than walking away from the Refugees Convention.

So to BBC impartiality and Lineker, the former is guilty of hypocrisy, the latter is not an employee of the BBC but right now I cannot see him politically being allowed to return to MotD. Too many people at the BBC and in Government will lose face but I suspect it's going to cost the BBC in damage to its own reputation and a cash settlement to prevent it going to court.

Christine #205, you quote

"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened"

Then say "coming over in a boat is not illegal provided they immediately on landing surrender themselves to authorities." and " a refugee is under no obligation to claim refugee status in the first safe country he or she lands in"

Which both seem contrary to the first quoted statement that they should be "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened"

They are coming from France!

Yes Eric, that word 'should' is doing some heavy lifting.

As an Immigration Officer at Dover in the 1980, we often had this issue, especially with some asylum seekers who may have gone through several countries before reaching Dover.

Anecdotally, most wanted to get to the UK because of family/friends already settled here, and/or they could speak English.

Two things I would suggest would be to assess claims before people left France and more immediately, resolve the backlog of people who are here, waiting to be assessed. Asylum seekers aren't allowed to work pending application, so in effect, the 2-3 year backlog means we are paying and teaching people not to work. It wouldn't stop all illegal entry, but would be a more effective, coherent policy.

But slogans are easier than critical thinking, aren't they?

Surprise surprise...I read that Klipperty has jumped on the bandwagon

Christine #205, if my memory is right, the two 'masterminds' creating the Stop the Boats 'policy' are the same people who came up with the slogan when advising the Australian govt. The policy of deporting people to Rwanda was stopped by the Australian govt after it found it to be ineffective and expensive.

Nice work for the 'masterminds'!

I said I'd leave it bit it's an interesting subject.

I don't oppose immigration. I promote it. We are built on immigration. Always have been as a nation.

But we have to realistic. Most European countries recognise that the current challenge is a problem.

I think that came out in the Anglo-French summit yesterday and the apparent Bromance.

For me, it should be about targeting the criminal gangs and those vulnerable people making dangerous crossingsputting life at risk.

Those who have been on the channel on an inflatable boat will understand that. I have and its not a pleasant experience. And that was piloted by professional Royal Marines.

The whole issue needs addressing further upstream. There are no quick fixes, I don't know the answers and I doubt anyone does. It will always happen, so the focus should be about controlling it.

As for Linekar he made implied references. I read a lot into German history and his remarks raised an eyebrow. You can't compare the two.

I guess we'll all have to agree or disagree.

It's all a smoke screen, and Gary Lineker has been the perfect slaughtered lamb - this Tory government has form in spades. Continuing their 'divide & conquer' tactics, they've again weaponised immigration, and used Lineker as the scapegoat for his comments (on their comments) to attempt to distract the public from the horrendous, pointless and probably unlawful bill they're trying to winkle through.

From what I've read/heard, the bill won't get through anyway but still, they've got Gary Lineker in a 'headlock' now so it's all going swimmingly for the 'nasty' party.

Also a nice smokescreen for Boris' old man, the wife beater to get into the Lords. Cunts the lot of them.

Trying to remember who said that the downfall of capitalism would be the movement of workers, Karl or Groucho? Thank heavens for corpy housing, eh.

Danny, you're right about targeting the criminal gangs, especially the ones operating on UK soil.

The language is very similar to 1930s Germany. The actions are, thankfully, very different.

Danny@231 I think that it's fair to say that we have benefitted greatly from controlled immigration not from immigration per se. There are no benefits whatsoever to the UK for uncontrolled immigration. It massively depresses productivity and will destroy the economy. It also has a massive affect on much of the existing population who suffer from the problem that infrastructure hasn't been made suitable for mass immigration. Btw, I believe that what the government has ever said about illegal immigration by small boat is absolutely no parallel with anything that happened in Nazi Germany, it's a nonsensical comparison to make.

Martin, who's arguing for 'uncontrolled immigration'?

Danny #211, you say we are built on immigration, but our early history that shaped us was one of conquest by foreign powers, not really the same thing but the same outcome I agree.

The only way that the UK will sort out the problem with the boat crossing is by stopping them at source. There needs to be a coordinated plan of action drawn up with the French to smash the smuggling gangs who are bringing so much misery and risk to life to those poor unfortunates who are taking the crossings. The issue requires additional resources in order to make progress, be that more UK police on French soil or more funds being provided to the French police authorities.

In addition to the above your Home Office needs to start processing applications in a more timely manner.

It just appears from a distance that a lot of things are broken in the UK at present.

Paul # absolutely no-one. But Bravermann and other talentless nobodies want to pretend they're fighting that battle. In reality they could resolve this by accepting France's offer of a processing plant on French soil. But Bravermann needs the dinghies to stir up fear and hate by people left behind by more meaningful government policy. Without the dinghies they'd actually be accountable for abject failure.

Danny, by migration in the past, I presume you mean folk like my Irish Great Grandfather, who came here with his brother and worked as Navigators digging our canals.
Liverpool and Birkenhead have had lots of migrant workers over the last two hundred years and of course, like all ports, we have had communities of ethnic diversity like the Chinese and Yemenis etc.
Small scale settlement by dock workers and sailors does not compare to the current influx of people seeking a better life.
The working class are being hit for six while the rich get richer.
It's a recipe for resentment. Divide and rule.

Eric@217 Conquest wasn't the same really because if we were defeated then the winners forced their cultural norms on us. When we have these waves of illegal immigrants (not asylum seekers) and including past waves then it's we who are expected to change to assimilate them. What we end up now is massive divisions between culturally incompatible groups with zero assimilation.

Martin #221, smart invaders don't force their cultural norms, they integrate them with existing cultural norms so the hosts don't feel oppressed and rebellious.

But yes, now what we have is bending over backwards to accommodate immigrants rather than have them integrate, which has lead to things like the Islamic Republic of Bradford, where they wanted to follow Sharia law over statute law.

The whole immigration issue is all about numbers and quality of life for me, I simply don't want our population to increase any more.

Over-population won't be a problem for me but it will for my descendants. As a nation, we always seem to wait till the horse has bolted before acting.

As for Lineker's comments, they're out of order. The BBC should take the opportunity to have a clear-out and sack the bloody lot of them. Talk about money for old rope, they have needed a change for a long time.

It would be better if they showed more actual play and let us make judgement on it and not by the so-called experts.

You can always have a vasectomy, Raymond.

Colin 225, thats a poor attempt at humour if thats what it is meant to be.
I'm way past increasing the population now I'm sorry to say.

Just seen that there will be the bare bones of MotD. 20 minutes in fact.

Does this mean we normally get 40 minutes of bland self-serving bullshit?

Absotively, Alan!

Raymond 224

Population growth is another lie the right wing grifters are telling you. The population growth of the UK has grown for the last 50 years. Net migration is a relatively small factor in that.

Current forecasts show about a 3% increase in population by 2030 from 2020 or about 2M. That's more than sustainable, as long as we have government who invests in public services and builds some fucking houses.

After that, it's likely to decrease as our baby boomer generation starts dying off at greater numbers than the current birth rate.

But like time in memoriam let's point to the foreigner to blame our problems on and not the obscene gap in wealth distribution in this country.

Graham, there are approx. 10 million now living in the Uk that were not born here, but of course if you don't want believe the figures that doesn't matter.

I don't blame people wanting to come to this country, I would in their shoes but as I said before I think we should now raise the full up sign.

Looking forward to watching MOTD without having to listen to their drivel

I prefer it, a better programme, BBC wasting massive money on ‘expert analysis' and biased, boring commentators. Ditch it for good, keep this format, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

Will watch MOTD in the morning when getting ready for work. The new format will save me fast forwarding through all the ‘punditry' and inane chatter from Lineker et al

will there ever be a better opportunity to clear the whole sodding lot of them out in one swoop. It would be glorious. I think there's a good chance Lineker and Wright are out for good. I don't think Lineker is going to agree to any restrictions on his daft arse tweets, and the Beeb cannot allow him to keep shooting from the hip like this. I'd close the wh9le shebang down tomorrow, not just Match of the Day. Compared to what it was even twenty years ago, it's utter tripe, and I am so sick of being preached to by these twats.

Imagine watching 20 minutes of highlights with no commentary and no analysis and concluding you enjoyed it more.

If you did you are an absolute whopper

MOTD was great. When I watch the game from my seat in the stand I don't need a commentary so why do I need it on tv ? It was nice to just watch highlights without the cosy chats of Gary and his mates. You've scored a few like that ain't you Ian, phew not arf Gary. The BBC will save a fortune.

Oh Allen

Imagine convincing yourself sports would be better televised with no commentary.

It's so fucking ridiculous it shouldn't deserve a debate.

Graham@230 Where did you buy that rubbish from. Census 2021 states very clearly that the grown in population since the last census was caused by immigration. Ethnic birth rates are actually decreasing.

Graham,

Remember the games played behind closed doors - in some of the coverage one could select commentary or not, faked crowd sound effects or not.

Did you ever see any of the figures produced on people's choices?

Martin

Not surprised where you are in this debate. I was talking about the last 50 years

Will

Seriously I've just watched it. Your saying no commentary is a better product?

I didn't watch it (MotD).

With many of the commentary efforts today, I do prefer it without. Some are OK but the standard has really dropped. I enjoyed some of those games with fake added crowd noise and without commentary.

Quality of commentator makes a difference. The punditry I can live without completely.

Graham, it's nothing to do with my political position, I just find it important to correct statements that are patently incorrect whatever their political nature and whoever makes them.

Martin the birth rate can decrease while still out pacing immigration. If you have 10 babies and 1 immigrant then the next year 5 babies and 1 immigrant the birth rate has plummeted but is still 5 times more than immigration. That said Britain is roughly the size of Japan with half as many people and Japan is incentivizing citizens to have more kids due to population decline. Projections expect the UK population to peak at around 75 million by 2100. Which means we could easily accommodate at least 25 million more immigrants. I'd prioritize legitimate asylum seekers then victims of global warming eg people from Vanuatu, Malta, Yemen. Once we bring in that lot in an orderly manner legally, the next wave of climate change victims from flooded zones like the Netherlands, impossibly hot eg Mali, Chad can go to Greenland as by that time it will be a green and pleasant land,

Kieran, I stated only statistics from NOS. The obscene growth in population since the early '80s was caused by immigration. It was started by the criminal Blair.

Ah yes, criminal Prime Ministers… although I think there has in fact been one PM convicted while in office. Step forward Boris Johnson.

Graham @ 230, stop making sense. Stating facts will cause dissonance for posters who get their political views from the Daily Mail. That is when they can tear their eyes off the bikini-clad TOWIE celebridees.

The BBC Director General (formerly Deputy Chairman of the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative Association), asked if he bowed to Tory government pressure.

He gets battered in this interview:

Gary Lineker row: BBC boss asked if he bowed to government pressure

He is in ‘listening' mode, so expect a full retreat next week.

Will @244, probably the best comment on this thread.

I too wish we would have sports journalists commentating rather than having to listen to the Neville and Carragher show, especially when they are blatantly supporting their teams. And given the punishment Andy Gray was dealt, how is Carragher still at Sky after spit-gate?

Very poignant point given we lost John Motson last week.

As for pundits, same gang, all with their bias towards the Sky darlings. It winds me up as much as BBC Breakfast.

As for political influence. It may be the case, but then if Lineker (Michael!) is going to dabble in that game, he opens himself up. If he's that interested, why doesn't he stand for a seat?

I'm pretty ambivalent. They're all the same. For every Thatcher and Johnson, there is a Tony Blair with his lies so he could go to war with his master George Bush. A Jeremy Corbyn who was friends with terrorists, both on these islands and in the Middle East.

Back on point. For me, there is no excuse for making implied reference to Nazi Germany. He could have made his point in a more calculated manner. I maintain my position, it was an ill-thought comparison.

To my point, he's been very vocal on political matters in recent years. Go and be a politician, Gary.

Paul #208, then I guess I "should" have used 'must' if it is a regulatory requirement.

Changes the status immediately.

All travelers to the UK — including from the EU and US — will need pre-authorization by 2025

Seems incongruous that anyone arriving at the UK border by air or rail without Electronic Travel Authorisation will be turned away,

But not by dinghy!!!

That's because they need the dinghies, Eric.

People like Braverman gain from stoking up the fear and hate. She has nothing to offer beyond that.

If there was any genuine desire to stop the channel crossings, we'd have had a processing centre in France since Brexit. The French keep offering...

Robert #253,

Correct, it suits their agenda to bang on about 'illegal immigrants ' when they know very well that an Asylum seeker does not become illegal until their application is declined.

They know exactly what they're doing and have taken a leaf out of the Trump book. Replace "Build the Wall" with "Stop the Small Boasts".

Strange that the BBC take Lineker off air for suggesting that the language used by Braverman was not unlike the language used in Germany in the 30s. I saw a picture yesterday of the Daily Mail in that same era with the headline Jews flood into Germany, I don't know why people still read that racist paper.

Also, Theresa May got up at the Tory Party Conference and said "You know that people call us the nasty party" – she got that spot on. Going back to Enoch Powell with his racist "rivers of blood "speech in which he said, if we keep allowing foreigners in, there will be rivers of blood in our streets.

Alan Sugar only a few years back showed a made-up picture of Corbyn sitting next to Hitler saying don't vote for this man, yet the BBC decided that's okay as the Tory Party didn't object because it was attacking their opponent.

Clarkson, another odious individual, suggested shooting some people arriving here, yet again still presented Top Gear on the BBC.

I guess in the BBC there are different levels of impartiality, and it has nothing to do with it having either Tory donors or ex-Number 10 men in high positions who decide what is impartial and what isn't.

Graham (various),

You go to see a lot of Everton games, right? You understand and watch the game without a commentator – why do you think it is less enjoyable without one on TV?

What do these commentators offer you that make it better? And that's without talking about the pundits and their mostly biased contributions.

Eric, this is where the grey areas around seeking asylum get even more grey.

All the asylum seekers I dealt with showed up at Dover without a passport. Either because they'd thrown it away, had it taken off them, or didn't have one in the first place. These days, you'd do well to get on a flight without a passport, hence they cross Europe to get here.

In effect, getting on a plane, Eurostar and I'm guessing, a ferry becomes a form of pre-entry validation.

The smugglers know this - they charge a premium in the knowledge that there are little, if any 'legal' routes. Quite right for 'economic migrants', not right, in my view, for genuine asylum seekers.

So a form of adequate pre-screening at France for genuine asylum seekers would provide a legal route - bear in mind that over 65% of applications are granted, albeit if after 2-3 years of waiting at our expense.

So my line would be to to recruit people to deal with the bottleneck of applications, increase pre-screening using the office space the French govt have agreed to provide. It wouldn't stop the boats, but it would make it easier to differentiate between genuine asylum seekers and others. Calling asylum seekers 'illegals' is demeaning, misleading and against international law.

Expensive? Yes. I suspect it is a cheaper, more effective option than the current position.

I suspect the word 'should' is used because there's an implicit convention that wealthier countries are obliged to help those in need. Otherwise, no asylum seekers would get to the UK, or any other island.

Like many issues, immigration is full of nuance. Government by slogan/gimmick will never be a substitute for the hard yards of coherent, thought-through, legal policy. Which is presumably why we have a policy of shouting 'Stop the Boats', and blaming international law for its inevitable failure.

The Mirror are reporting that viewing figures for last night's MotD were up by almost half a million on the previous Saturday. It would seem viewers were not deterred by the absence of the show's host or its pundits.

Food for thought for the BBC – they could save themselves a fortune by revamping the current format. The reduction in costs would also enable them to reduce the license fee, thus making it more affordable to the masses.

Gerry,

interesting. Maybe some novelty viewers, and some that could fit it in to their viewing due to the shorter programme length; I heard it was 20 minutes, haven't checked. But, surprising.

Of course, many would be people wanting to see new-look Super Everton! :-)

Were we still on last?

Yes, we were still on last. It was a bit surreal. For all that presenters, pundits and commentators wind me up, it was a bit soulless.

Will, you guessed it right, some things never change.

Stuart, it was somewhat surreal though I think that was largely due to lack of commentary, an example of that was if a goal scorer wheeled away in celebration and you didn't catch the name on the shirt, you weren't immediately sure of who'd scored. However, the absence of a show host and pundits had little bearing on the proceedings from my perspective.

My primary reason for watching is to see actual football being played. I really do believe they should seriously reconsider the current format. There needs to be a lot more game time and less tedious chat in the studio.

I agree with most of that, Gerry. It was definitely the lack of commentary which felt the strangest. It's odd, because I generally hate the TV commentary and am always shouting at the screen, yet last night I figured they are needed to convey the momentum and emotion of the play.

Dave 256 - the atmosphere just doesn't come across in the sound edit. I was left wondering if I'd prefer the Beeb commentary after all.

I mean, it's not like they have Matterface, or anyone truly unbearable like that.

Stuart (262),

I don't usually watch it but saw bits of it on Sunday as I was getting ready to go out. Football on its own suits me without the commentary.

I definitely wouldn't miss any of the pundits, any of them on any channel, but as Gerry says @261. they might consider a different format with more football and less tedious chat in the studio. I doubt I will go back to watching it either way.

I'm a little reluctant to join this discussion. I follow ToffeeWeb all the time – just don't post.

Well, I am Chair of the Israeli Supporters Club – "Israeli Toffees". Our members are either originally from Liverpool (like me) or were "born, not manufactured" in Israel (don't ask me how).

Anyway, it is very much thanks to the gentleman whose knowledge of history is so poor that he thinks it is amusing to make fun of the Holocaust, that people like me are in Israel, and why Israel is a historical necessity.

Personally, I wish it hadn't been… but there wasn't really very much of an alternative. After all, the British stopped Jewish immigration in 1905, the Americans in 1922 – all by right-wing governments looking for votes. It's always been so easy to blame migrants, hasn't it?

So when some Jews decided to make alternative arrangements – by setting up a deeply flawed State – apparently lots of people find fault with that choice too! Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

I wouldn't expect that miserable bloke to sit down and read a few books or send him off to be taught a lesson by IDF troops. With an intelligence level of cut grass, it's unlikely that he even understands what he has done.

Brian @255.

I think that the problem we have with the Lineker issue is that people immediately fall into camps based upon their own views on politics.

Most Tories will think "Oh, Gary Lineker criticising our government again, and Liberals (lefties) think "Oh, yes Gary is right, poor people fleeing war".

The issue of immigration and how to control numbers and decide who is in real danger and who just wants a better life is the real issue.

The BBC radio people spent the whole weekend naval-gazing, as usual, and the talk was about the BBC, Impartiality and Gary Lineker. His fellow MotD team all backed him and we were then deprived of the usual 5-Live coverage all Saturday. So the real issue of Migrants was lost.

I personally think he has every right to speak out and the BBC should stop trying to pretend that they are impartial. They certainly are not.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a good example. The coverage of Labour's Corbyn, the Brexit debate. All these issues reflect a bias, sometimes obvious, sometimes not.

As for Lineker, his virtue signalling immediately had people jumping in on his side or slagging him off. The fall-out will hit the BBC.

The man who gets the most wages from the BBC is helping those who would like the license fee abolished to achieve their aims.

Comedians regularly mock government policy and many others like Clarkson and Sugar have had their views despite being on BBC programmes.

On the subject of MotD, our years of crap football have seen us as the last game on and the likes of Shearer, Murphy and Co have no interest in us, other than to observe our utter wretchedness.

Lineker probably likes his native Leicester and his Spurs much more than his year on Merseyside.

However, I did watch us on Amazon Prime the other week and it was great to have a button to keep the crowd but lose the awful commentary and dreadful analyst (Ally McCoist).

I find MotD boring and the tactical analysis is usually just making a triangle and showing how nobody was in it. Then some poor bugger is picked on and they show three poor passes.

Perhaps it is time for a revamp. An hour of footy with a 2-minute intro and a few interviews at the end.

Now there is a valid argument, 500,000 viewers strong, for screening MotD without the tedious pundits and most of the commentators. We should get a red button option to cut them out altogether.

I must admit, although initially a bit odd, watching it on Sunday morning without the constant expertise and just being able to watch the football was actually quite enjoyable.

I was commenting to someone this morning. Aside from that awful Breakfast show that tells me how bad the world is every morning, I don't actually mind the BBC.

My view is they are caught between a rock and a hard stone trying to be impartial. That will always set you up for criticism. The left will accuse them of leaning to the right. The right will accuse them of being biased towards the left. I suppose we have to remember that in reality their masters are the Government of the day regardless of party.

The TV licence is effectively a compulsory tax that we have to pay if we want to watch the TV. It generates nearly ٢ billion a year and Mr Lineker takes home ٟ.3 million of that.

Plastic socialist in my opinion.

Okay, that's harsh. As I have repeatedly said, I don't have issue with his view on immigration and I support immigration.

I just don't like or agree with his reference to Nazi Germany, even if it is just implied, it is inappropriate. I've said before, if he feels that strongly, go into politics to try and make a difference. Don't be a social media warrior.

The current issue that European countries, not just the UK, are trying to solve is not a direct comparison and it is distasteful to try to compare, dressing it up as just language.

Regardless, The BBC will pander, he will be seen as the crusader and we will be subject to his wisdom and wit next Saturday.

Personally, I'm more focussed on our trip to Chelsea.

Personally, I think there's a middle ground between the bloated, tedious mess that MotD has become, and the too-short, stripped-back MotD shown this week.

Perhaps more variety of pundit, including knowledgeable celebrity fans, ex-managers, ordinary fans, players from the lower leagues, basically anyone – of either sex – with a keen interest in footie who can string a couple of sentences together in an entertaining way.

The commentary is unnecessary for me, but it helps to see the teamsheets and maybe have a subtitle showing the names of players involved in the main action.

MotD should never last more than an hour, and that should be mostly the highlights, not the chat.

Lineker is a decent presenter, but – as with the rest of the pundits – is it really necessary to employ someone so expensive on the public broadcasting budget? He's good, but he's not that good.

Sorry, one other thing. The BBC were running as a main screaming headline yesterday, something along the lines of "BBC Sport coverage heavily disrupted again".

When I read the article, it turned out they meant that there was reduced coverage of a women's football match. Nothing against women's footie, it's great and all that, but seriously – who fucking cares?

The BBC's relevance to sports fans has diminished so much over my lifetime.

I see that Lineker is rejoining MotD.

I may just join twitter to beg him not to, Maybe focus on being a spiritual guru.

All friends again now apparently, so we'll have the Lineker gang back again for next week.

It seems like it's been a Mexican dance-off. A bit like when my boy Ridgeback stumbles into a German Shepherd. Bit of a shouting match and then they get back to what they were doing.

Lineker on his political crusade will, I imagine, see it as a personal victory and standing his ground.

And the BBC have pretty much succumbed to fear of a backlash and losing face rather than standing their ground

Either way, I repeat, I have no issue with his points on the current situation, it's a serious one. I just don't agree with or like his historical reference.

Oh well, the storm in the tea cup is over and next week, I can be subject to his, Wright's and Shearer's expertise when I get back from Chelsea – or on Sunday morning after I've walked the dogs.

I dont like Lineker as he never mentions his year at Everton!

We were still on last on MotD so who cares about the commentary? However, it did save me from reaching for the remote between games so I don't have to listen to the pundits, hence didn't have to put my Jack Daniels down which was good.

Couple of quick observations as the immigration issue is too complicated for me so I won't take sides -

1) Lineker is a vocal advocate for the EU, but supports people coming to Brexit Britain from the EU.

2) Germany in 1930s people were trying to get out; we have people desperate to get in.

3) Germany killed people, we put them up in 4-star hotels, feed them and give them pocket money. How else could they get their fags and hang out in the betting shop each day, as I witness?

Everyone deserves a chance but it has to be genuine or the people really suffering become forgotten and further disadvantaged. That's the real underlying tragedy.

Complete capitulation from the BBC.

Lineker back hosting MotD after not backing down an inch, ably supported by the footballing community. Instead, the social media policy they used as the basis for suspending him is being rewritten.

7-0.

At least we can go back to listening to his words of wisdom, as well as those of his groupies, Steve.

I guess it it is a case of say what you want is okay.

I don't really care. I probably won't be back from the match to catch his triumphant return and the dogs will have me out the following morning.

I'll give BBC iPlayer a miss. I can catch the highlights back on the Everton website, which is what I normally do.

Looking forward to seeing some of you on Saturday.

It was odds-on the BBC would cave – the place is run by imbeciles.

As for impartiality, the organisation is infested with bone idle arseholes who wouldn't know fact from candyfloss. How on earth can the following advice to staff be anything but ignorance:-

“To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage". (For those who don't know, the catchall term "climate change" is a spurious representation of cause-specific man-made climate change.)

It's Pravda in a clown suit.

Well said Ray Jacques, good points regarding 1930s Germany. Lineker should be sacked, end of. If he knew the political agenda in '30s Germany, he would well know that the Nazi government was targeting its own citizens of Jewish decent, families who'd been there for generations. A far cry from people getting into the country by illegal means.

So it's not a political view, it was a rant which he had time to think about and subsequently posted, unlike our fan who got banned for 5 years for a moment of madness in a highly charged atmosphere (however wrong that may be, not justifying it).

As for the 'yid' word, it's Political Correctness gone fucking crazy! If Spurs fans want to call themselves 'yids', so be it; if anybody else does? So what? Why is it racist? Yiddish is a dialect spoken by a section of Jewish people, as is Hebrew, why isn't the word 'Hebrew' and its variants banned also?

I'm English and my dialect is Scouse, I live in London and my kids dialect is cockney, 'scouse cunts', 'cockney wankas', lock me up and throw away the key!!!!! If one dialect is deemed racist, then all should be, surely? Just fucking Political Correctness stupidity in my opinion.

A 5-year ban for hissing, I remember a five year ban when 39 Italians were innocently killed by someone once upon a time, how times change hey.

That is cutting it a bit thin. I'm fairly sure they weren't into open borders so stating that deserves cancellation while the other terms are just good-natured social conventions is terribly inconsistent.

Everyone's consideration of a hot topic like this needs to at least attempt a dispassionate discourse. A little consistency in one's rant would be a second choice if one must be passionate.

Danny, Lineker can say what he wants and he did.

It's a free country.

Boycott MotD if you want, but let the dogs watch it at least.

Does free speech really mean you can say whatever you want, Steve, without thinking through the consequence?

I don't think so. Especially when you are in a position of influence.

In my view, he made a reference to one of the most murderous and brutal regimes that nearly destroyed Europe and put a stain on humanity, which was out of line with what was a valid point about a different subject.

I understand freedom of speech, Steve. I've stood up for people's rights to it in areas of conflict. But there are lines and it shouldn't be abused or manipulated.

I'll just disagree with you on this one, Steve, and you can disagree with me

Personally I'm ambivalent to him getting reinstated. Carragher did after spitting in someone's face.

Unless I am out watching live, I tend to mostly just watch Everton highlights. The dogs just worry about my state of mind and watch me, Steve!!!

Onto Saturday now that Lineker-gate is done.

All the best.

BBC never had a problem with Rolf Harris asking people to blow his didgeridoo or talking about Jake The Peg's third leg.

Danny, I think Lineker did think through the consequences and decided to speak up.

“A swarm”. A “flood”. “Marauders”. An “invasion”. These are all words that this government has used to describe migrants, so the analogy that Lineker used is appropriate and correct.

He has cut through the deliberately dehumanising language that Sunak and Co have deployed as a weapon. They'll think twice about trying it again as an ex-footballer has forced them to step back – as did Marcus Rashford.

Perhaps more people need to step out of their lane for real change to happen in this country.

Steve, Lineker used inflammatory language to condemn inflammatory language.

He's as bad as they are.

Steve, I presume that you are in favour of taking in refugees. I think Mr Lineker is also keen on the idea and even had one in one of his houses for a while. I am sure that Gary's staff helped to attend to the guy's needs.

The right to Lineker's free speech is not generally being debated, rather than the actual language he used and comparing Government ministers' use of language to that of 1930s Germany is insulting to the victims of Nazi actions – including the Jews, Gypsies, Communists, Disabled and various other minorities. Not to mention the soldiers and civilians who died as a consequence.

That is the difference between the language of Sunak and Co and Hitler and Co.

Lineker is old enough to know better, but he knew exactly what he was doing. It wasn't using his free speech, it was an attempt to besmirch the government with associations with the Third Reich.

He went to the World Cup where modern slavery made the event possible.

For me, he is a smarmy hypocrite.

I agree with Steve Brown at 194.

I hoped to put this to bed, but I can't let it go.

He is comparing two totally different situations and was being provocative.

As I've said elsewhere, if he's that passionate, go into politics. He seems vocal on quite a few matters. Working Class hero.

Anyway, I don't really care too much. He's got his way and he'll be back on our screens next week.

Me, I'll be at Stamford Bridge fretting and cheering the boys on with the travelling blue army.

"Resolved" pretty quickly... but then nothing would ever really be allowed to harm the game itself, it's too risky. Not that MotD is anything of import today but that's only my opinion.

Steve, I wouldn't rise to that use of words by "government". It's sick PR intended to relate to who they view as the little people, implying the whole situation is due to some despicable force beyond their control.

The truth of their stance on immigration is very different.

Danny he had every right to say what he said on his own private Twitter account. I completely 100 agree with him.

If Alan Sugar can spout his right-wing nonsense about Jeremy Corbyn and his appeal to vote for the clown Johnson on his Twitter account while employed by the BBC, so can Lineker.

Free speech, just cause you might not like what he is saying he's got every right to say it. I'm delighted he's back as MotD was garbage without the pundits and commentators.

Mick,

I think personal account might be a better description. There is no such thing as private in social media with activity in this vein.

I'm 100% for free speech but those using it must 100% anticipate and accept the real world consequences. Rightly or wrongly, I doubt few on this site would post an equivalent while in employment. There would be no way back.

Danny 198.

What has been said by the government and written by some papers compared to what same papers (namely Daily Mail) wrote back in the 30s/40s is of the same bile.

People have taken what Lineker said as referring to what happened 1939-1945. He was talking about was what said in early 1930s that led to 1939-1945. If you compare those periods.

So if you are passionate about politics then you have to go into politics? Maybe that is why the country is the mess that it is.

Because few people are passionate about politics which affect their daily existence. So only politicians can be passionate about politics? Sigh.

James, I am very well versed in German history having lived there and speak the language. Not as well as I used to, but I still get by...

I go to watch Schalke as often as I can and visit the area I used to live in every year. I'm there in May.

I just don't see the comparison with 1930s Germany and the Nazi party to what the UK, France and other European partners are trying to solve for right now. Different issues and not comparable.

Maybe it's me then, but I will maintain it was inappropriate and irrelevant.

Anyway, he's won, he's back next week like spit the dog was. Those who support him can watch him on Saturday night. I'll be travelling back from Stamford Bridge.

We can move on and focus on Everton.

And so ends the most bowel loosening stand-off since JFK faced down Nikita Kruschev all those years ago (the 62-63 season).

Now, thankfully, we can snuggle down next to our tellys and trannies (no, not that kind… oh please yourselves) and luxuriate in the mangled English of Shearer, the maniacal laughter of Richards, the total feckin bollocks of Savage and the rudeness of Sutton.

And fantasise as Alex Scott drops her aitches.

Fifteen minutes of goal action and 45 about Klopp and his ilk.

Welcome back, Gaz.

Alan, that's the real tragedy of all this - MOTD goes back to its usual tedious format with its tedious pundits and their endless shite,

I could definitely have taken another few Micah Richards-free weeks.

Alan – lovely stuff mate.

Michael –32 it's such a shame about Micah. He was a breath of fresh air, much like Lineker was back in the day, but his talents are limited and over used.

As for Shearer, I think he could make anything ordinary.

Eddie, I was serving with a Blackburn fan at the time they won the league.

Apparently, and according to his book at the time, he celebrated by creosoting his garden fence.

He is a dull character.

But we get them all back next week.

Agree on Micha. At least he is entertaining in my opinion.

Danny,

I can visualise Shearer painting his fence, mind you creosote ain't what it was you know!

Some people like commentators, some do not. Why can't there be an option to hear the crowd only? I'm sure Sky used to have that option.

And for those who enjoy the supposedly witty banter between the likes of Carragher and Tyler, so be it. Anyway why have co-commentators, one prat is enough.

And the endless analysis and tales of days gone by from Shearer, Lineker, Murphy & Co. I can do without it. At least the BBC haven't given the job to the super-bland Mark 'Chappers' Chapman.

Ray#185 You said Lineker never mentioned his time at Everton. Do you remember during the World Cup, MOTD had Lineker, Shearer and Richards picking there top 10 in different categories, Lineker told Shearer and Richards, even though it wasn't in the script, Everton was the best team he ever played for and mentioned most of the Everton team in his best team which was pre Premiership and not in any category.
As an Irish man looking in, Lineker is freelance, so is not officially part of the BBC and there employee rules. He's entitled to speak his mind, and because 36 tories didn't like his free speech, and BBC bowed to their political interference, and arrogance,the BBC told
lies saying he took himself off MOTD, until Dan Walker told the truth on a different TV channel.

Couldn't agree more Christy. I don't give a shit if people agree with Lineker's tweet... surely most people don't want the Tories meddling in what freelance people can post, just because they work for the BBC? Or the BBC trying to bullshit us? OK, mentioning 1930s Germany is always contentious, even if many people seem to be missing the fact he was talking about the rhetoric, not the policy, but he didn't say it on MOTD. He posted it on Twitter. How f*%$ing dare the BBC, chaired by the Royal Bank of Boris, call him out on impartiality.

Alan (#205), if you think "the most bowel loosening stand-off was JFK facing down Nikita Kruschev all those years ago (the 62-63 season)" I can only assume you were in a coma when we beat Wimbledon to stay up!

And it's very significant to me when the fascistic, self-serving pillocks in our government slag off Lineker whilst having been silent on the fascistic, self-serving pillock Alan Sugar tweeting his huge admiration for Brexit and Boris Johnson whilst hosting that bloody stupid BBC program of his.

Mick #200 "Free speech, just cause you might not like what he is saying he's got every right to say it"

Apparently not if the government decide to call it "misinformation" or "fake news" then you can be censored, lose your job and your livelihood.

Know your Rights,
You have the right to free speech as long as your not dumb enough to actually try it.

How prophetic The Clash were David.

Eric, Best live band I have ever seen, even named my son after the lead singer.

Strummer Currie????

Saw them live the night before my final law exam. I failed it!!

Rob H @,109, that is something I have been an advocate of since time immemorial, why football fans who generally are very knowledgeable about the game have overpaid ex-pro pundits stating the obvious, with comments like "If he had only passed to Y instead of X it would have been a certain goal." We have all just seen that (hypothetically) and don't need to be told that. Fan Punditry would be a lot cheaper and definitely more informative.

Jamie Redknapp what a gobshite he is, on every panel going (Sky) and every advert, from selling/buying cars to Trainers and Arsewipes, like his old fella, just one greedy family that!

Getting back to the BBC which used to be a revered bastion of Broadcasting, has degenerated into some woke brigade where almost anything goes. There are still millions of people paying TV Licences, have every right to refuse to pay as they are being served up expensively produced detritus, in which they have had no say whatsoever. Not all programmes are bad but probably 85% are.

Eddie 196, smarmy hypocrite.

If he said something you agreed with he'd be a crusader for the truth. He has been utterly vindicated and both the BBC and the government have backed down.

End of story.

Eddie @ 196 – spot on. The comparison is not only ridiculous but offensive to many.

Steve @ 220 – he was suspended not expelled. He's been punished, not vindicated. The fact a burglar gets 6 months jail not life doesn't make them innocent.

Also, to use “end of story” and “smarmy” in the same post is off-the-scale oxymoronic, but not atypical of the politically entrenched.

Gary, he was suspended and then reinstated. The social media policy that was used as the basis for his suspension is being rewritten. if that doesn't signify vindication then I don't know what does.

The reality is that, if the policy had been tested, for example, through a breach of contract dispute between Lineker and the BBC, the court would have considered whether his wider rights, including freedom of speech, held primacy of his contractor terms and conditions. I assume the BBC's lawyers advised that Lineker would stand a chance of success.

The term ‘smarmy” came from Eddie rather than myself. As for being ‘politically entrenched', I have a sneaky feeling that might apply more to you than me perhaps.

Well done for trying to get oxymoronic into your post, even better ‘off the scale' oxymoronic.

Gary 221, Eddie 196

Swap the word 'migrant' for 'Jew' in Braverman's speech, then you may see how it sounds 1930'ish Germany.

Quite incredible, the reaction to Lineker's tweet, crass and offensive as it was. He's a footballer, for fuck's sake! When did anybody expect a footballer to say anything interesting or intelligent?

I think 'footballer' underplays it a bit, Roger.

He's the BBC's top paid employee who had been warned numerous times before about his obligations on impartiality to his employer, who then compared one party's policy to that of the Nazis.

I wasn't at all surprised when he was suspended. He needed a kick up the arse. But then, like most things with the Beeb these days, it all went pear-shaped.

Andrew Gray, good post.

Was hoping the BBC would keep the no experts or no commentary.
Luynaker, and that annoying prat Richards really are too much. Sometimes especially with Richards, I'll urn off the volume so as not to put up with his hyena laughing.