BBC sports broadcaster suspended for violation of 'impartiality' guidelines in a social media post

The U.K. is currently in the midst of a crisis involving illegal aliens attempting to enter the U.K. by traveling across the English Channel on small boats

More than 45,000 illegal aliens entered the U.K. last year, up from about 300 in 2018. The U.K. is currently spending £7 million on hotels to accommodate the illegal crossers into the country.

Unlike the Biden administration, which has purposefully left U.S. borders unguarded to allow an uncontrolled influx of illegal aliens, the U.K. government is making attempts to curb this problem.

The U.K. Home secretary proposed legislation that enables instant deportation of those entering the U.K. illegally. This could be an effective way to deter the influx.



As expected, the open borders fanatics in the U.K. were outraged by this idea, and branded it racist and xenophobic. 

As always, none of these open borders advocates volunteered to accommodate these illegal aliens in their homes or sponsor any hotel rooms for them. 

It is just plain and empty virtue-signaling.

Among those outraged was BBC Sports broadcaster and former soccer star Gary Lineker.

Lineker took to Twitter to brand the proposed legislation as ‘beyond awful.’



Linekar added that the "immeasurably cruel policy" was directed at "the most vulnerable people in a language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s."



The comparison is preposterous.

In Germany during the 1930s, the Jewish people who suffered systemic targeting were citizens and not illegal migrants. They were persecuted and suffered genocide for their religious beliefs and immutable nationality.

The scale of persecution and targeting was such that it led to the Holocaust where 6 million Jews perished and millions more were displaced. This is one of the darkest chapters in human history. Casual comparisons to any contemporary occurrences are particularly insensitive to the millions of victims and trivialize the graveness of what happened.

A country is a finite entity with borders and citizens; aspiring visitors must subject themselves to vetting before permission for entry is granted. Law enforcement is an important function of any government. The illegal aliens arriving in the U.K. will not be punished for their race or religion but for violating immigration laws.

Now for the BBC: Lineker is a freelance broadcaster.

The BBC has guidelines that are known as impartiality rules that don't permit any partisan expression.

The guidelines apply not only to ideas expressed on the BBC but also to social media posts of BBC accounts.

Lineker signed a five-year deal with the BBC in 2020, under which he agreed to adhere to their updated impartiality rules.

For violating these guidelines, Lineker was suspended by the BBC.

Despite these guidelines, the BBC chief has acknowledged that the U.K. broadcasting outlet has a liberal bias, which he pledged to confront.

BBC’s liberal bias is apparent to anyone watching.

The BBC head Richard Sharp was criticized for failing to declare his involvement in facilitating a loan for then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson shortly before he was appointed to the role.

BBC America’s Katty Kay frequently appeared on Democrat mouthpiece MSNBC, but somehow that didn’t seem to upset the BBC.

The BBC's global service were deeply biased in covering the U.S. They blindly accepted various Democrat conspiracy theories against President Trump.

BBC veterans such as Sir Mark Tully would have never allowed this to happen.

It is still commendable that they have some guidelines, and most importantly, that these guidelines are enforced.

U.S.-based news outlets such as MSNBC or CNN or the New York Times  and others frequently have contributors comparing President Trump to Hitler and there are no consequences at all.

Lineker is a serial violator who has on many occasions expressed controversial ideas on Twitter.

Lineker was a vocal opponent of Brexit and backed the campaign for another EU referendum, claiming Brexit felt very " very wrong indeed."

Lineker is also known for being viciously anti-Israel. He tweeted against arrests in the West Bank and lamented the killing of a Palestinian footballer who was eventually found to be a Hamas terrorist.

Back to Lineker’s suspension.

The decision triggered a wave of condemnation from Lineker's colleagues who boycotted their duties for the next broadcast compelled the BBC  to use their radio commentary service in place.

The spin doctors attempted to suggest that Lineker was suspended for being critical of the government which run by the British conservative party

So what does one make of this?

Is this an infringement of free speech?

Lineker’s opinion about the anti-migrant bull was obviously a scandalous overstatement and insensitive.

But in a democracy, all expressions should be allowed, even the vilest of ones.

Piers Morgan tweeted that “if we don’t cherish & fiercely protect free speech, even for views we personally despise, we’re no better than totalitarians.”



But Lineker's free speech rights weren’t violated. He hasn’t been detained or arrested. His tweets still remain – Twitter hasn’t suppressed them and neither has law enforcement compelled him to delete them.

What has happened is a violation of his employment clause which Lineker signed of his own volition. The clauses were not discriminatory in any form. They just demanded that if he wanted to work for the BBC even on a contractual basis, he had to adhere to the rules and refrain from commenting on political issues.

If free speech mattered to Lineker, he should have rejected the BBC’s employment offer and chosen to work at any organization where he was permitted to express himself more freely.

Let’s look beyond the BBC in the UK.

Unlike the U.S., the U.K. has government-approved regulators such as Ofcom that monitors the media.

Ofcom is authorized to issue fines against violators or suspend broadcasting licenses of offenders which results in shutting down the news outlet.

Ofcom doesn’t always issue such punitive actions.

When Piers Morgan said he didn’t trust Meghan Markle's allegations against the British royal family during her Oprah interview, Ofcom received around 58,000 complaints. Ofcom cleared Morgan, stating that he had a right to express his opinion.

So could a government-approved regulatory body such as Ofcom work in the U.S.?

On paper, regulations would have prevented the U.S. mainstream media from peddling hoaxes about the Trump-Russia collusion, the violent insurrection on January 6, and numerous other vicious falsehoods about President Trump.

But there is another side to this.

What if Ofcom is infiltrated by Democrats like most powerful organizations within the U.S. are. What if they had hired Republicans such as Adam Kinzinger and Mitt Romney to demonstrate impartiality?

This organization would immediately shut down any organization that violates the Democrat groupthink.

While big corporate media organizations have the means to hire teams of lawyers to defend their cases for as long as it takes, smaller organizations will not have that luxury and will shut down.

The First Amendment which protects freedom of speech and the press is hence the best system. 

The D.C. Democrat establishment is attempting to trample the right to free speech, but the fact that it exists in the Constitution is sufficient protection.

The First Amendment is vital because enables independent media outlets to counter spurious narratives peddled by various Democrat mouthpieces.

The First Amendment is essential American democracy to survive.

Image: Twitter screen shot

If you experience technical problems, please write to