Gary Lineker has sensationally quit the BBC and will not front the 2026 World Cup following an antisemitism row that erupted after he shared a social-media post on Instagram about Israel’s special military operation in Gaza featuring a drawing of a rat. The Sunhas more.
The former Leicester City and England striker is bowing out by mutual agreement after 26 years with his final Match of the Day this Sunday. …
Gary agreed to leave the BBC for good after meeting bosses last week – with a source saying he realised his position was untenable.
The ex-Tottenham, Everton and Leicester City striker steps back after 26 years with the broadcaster, where he was its highest-paid presenter on £1.35 million a year.
His final years as MOTD host have been marred by his outspoken views and fallouts with bosses.
He is now likely to focus on his successful Goalhanger Podcasts business.
And those close to the star said his exit means he will be able to speak more freely. …
Last Tuesday, Gary deleted an Instagram story post from the group Palestine Lobby after he had shared it with his 1.2 million followers.
The re-post led to widespread calls for the BBC to drop Gary and the charity Campaign Against Antisemitism said it was submitting a complaint to the corporation. …
Six months later the BBC published rules for its presenters which said they would be “allowed to express views on issues and policies but stop short of political campaigning”.
He should have been fired for his anti-brexit religious views. Calling us Nazis. Comparing us to 1930s Germany. But no. You can only get fired for criticising the Jew or Muslim.
You will never get fired calling people who have pride in country, heritage, history, achievements and independence ‘Nazis’. Never.
This is my firm’s social media policy which forms part of my contract of employment. Some of my posts could very easily be considered a “discussion that would adversely affect the Company reputation” and to not “fit with the view the company wants to share online” by someone with standard Establishment left wing views. One reason that I post anonymously. As many of us will work for firms with similar policies, “free speech” in practice is perhaps not achievable. “The Company recognises that employees will have personal social media accounts. Such accounts must only be used to express personal views, and care should be exercised in all cases where you are identifiable as someone employed by the Company. In any event, you must identify yourself as an employee of the Company when promoting our products/services. The Company requires employees using social media sites to refrain from making any comments or engage in discussions, which would adversely affect the Company or the Company reputation, or that of our customers and suppliers. It is also prohibited to breach discrimination legislation or harass or bully an employee or damage working relationships between fellow employees. You must not share any confidential or sensitive Company… Read more »
I’m glad that I no longer have a contract of employment, I don’t believe that my final one contained such strictures but there are always all purpose clauses that can be used if the company decides to do so.
Such accounts I have do include my real name, but if I were to start again I would definitely take the anonymous route.
It concerns me greatly that the use of personal devices outside of working hours is covered, I would have thought that would cross the line legally.
I think the clause about personal devices outside working hours may be unenforceable unless the use related directly to your work, but I don’t intend to find out.
I should also say that we’re not a particularly “woke” firm, though some of our clients are, and our founder was – I think the wording above is pretty standard and I doubt the bosses had much to do with drafting it – probably just lifted it from somewhere, for our (tiny) HR department to do it, to tick a box.
He’s not entitled to say anything he wishes and expect no repercussions, though. Nobody is. It reflects on your employer. Okay, this is probably more applicable when one isn’t employed by an organisation which doesn’t spout Leftist, garbage, woke propaganda on the regular. Certainly his views chime with the Beeb on the whole.
Another example is the pro-terrorist medical staff attending protests ( sometimes posting videos too ) in their works uniforms. Should this be allowed? Absolutely not. But we’re talking about the heavily woke-infested NHS, so they’ll most likely get away with their “freedom of speech” defence when they’re literally supporting terrorism and hating on Jews.
I think normal, reputable organisations would and should discipline their staff for this sort of activism as it reflects badly on them. And what is “illegal” speech, anyway?
I think people need a reality check if they think anything and everything people say is going to be covered by this supposed right to freedom of speech/expression, because it evidently doesn’t work like that in the real world.
“Okay, this is probably more applicable when one isn’t employed by an organisation which doesn’t spout Leftist, garbage, woke propaganda on the regular.”
That’s most large firms certainly in the Anglosphere.
I really wonder whether his take from this story is that perhaps, even a little, he’s a bit too passionate about a topic where you clearly can’t be leaning 100% on one side or another, or is he convinced that he’s yet another victim of the Zionists that rule over everything… For sure those evil forces are quite slow, taking them 2 years to silence him.
The Common Law proviso is that free speech is limited if it promotes and incites hatred and violence.
Spreading the type of anti-Jewish propaganda used by National Socialist Germany whose clear aim was genocide, echoed by a Palestinian group whose clear aim is genocide must be tested under that Common Law proviso.
So was it likely there would be individuals receptive to this kind of expression? Yes. If so, would it promote hatred among these receptive individuals? Yes. Would it likely incite to violence? Yes.
We can answer in the affirmative because it is a matter of record that is exactly what happened in Germany in the 1930s/1940s.
I guess I’m going to be one of the dissenting voices on this.
I don’t think anyone should lose their job over their political views.
The idea that it hurts the image of the company is an argument that has been stretched too far.
One thing is to do something criminal or objectively wrong (e.g. steal, kill, rape) that brings your employer into disrepute.
But a political idea is not, or shouldn’t be, something that brings your employer to distrepute. That’s just.mind control and censorship by the back door.
I want a society in which people can have and express their legitimate opinions. If your employer gets to define what is a legitimate opinion, we’re not in a good place.
I tend to agree. Anyone who disagrees, which they are free to do, should bear in mind that most large organisations in the Anglosphere are left wing dominated – this includes private businesses. Anti-immigration, anti-vaxx etc opinions shared by many on here may well be considered “bringing their employer into disrepute”. It cuts both ways. My doubts are in the area of an employee publicly rubbishing the firm’s own products and services, which seems a legitimate area for disciplinary action. I suppose if you are a very well known public figure and you say things that lots of people take exception to, and that leads to a boycott of the product(s) and service(s) you are getting paid to promote, you could say that you have caused the people who pay you some financial loss, and they could choose not to use you again, not to pay you or even to sue you. It’s something of a special case and very much unlike some private person who is a permanent employee of a firm – most of these public figures won’t be “employees” but effectively freelancers or on specific contracts. I am not sure how I feel about this. On balance… Read more »
Lineker questioned the Jew narrative. That is as good as a death sentence here (and we can add to this – questioning the queer cult, the trans cult, the muslim cult, the globalist cults, the climate con etc, all guaranteed to get you fired).
I do not agree Stewart and particularly where people have been granted a public platform via their employer, and at the taxpayers expense, to spout political opinions that some will find obnoxious.
Well your opinions on “covid” and many other matters are doubtless considered “obnoxious” by many (not by me) and maybe by your employer. You post anonymously but let’s say you got “outed” online and you happen to work for some taxpayer funded organisation. Would you be happy getting fired?
I agree that, as a general principle, people are entitled to hold and express their personal political views. However, Lineker is so strongly identified with the BBC brand that anything he says is bound to be seen by a significant proportion of the audience as being in tune with the BBC’s views, and therefore no longer perceived as a personal view. The BBC likes to project itself as being impartial (yes, I know!), so when one of its most emblematic stars starts stirring up this kind of controversy it has to take action to safeguard its claimed impartiality. Regardless of the fact that its whole editorial policy has a distinctive political slant.
I don’t think less of Amazon or Waitrose or Nike or HSBC bank because an employee of theirs thinks Israeli’s are monsters or thinks Palestians are barbarians, or doesn’t believe in free speech (something I really care about).
To me it says nothing at all about those companies. I’m capable of separating the political beliefs of the employees of a company from the company.
And if I can do it, then anyone can do it. If they want to.
Yes it’s a matter of fashion, which makes money for the media which makes such a connection. Clearly you should not bite the hand that feeds you but generally the default position should be that expressing political or religious opinions should not do this. There would be notable exceptions to this where the expression directly affects the company’s purpose. In linekers case given that the BBC is allegedly neutral he does probably cross the line. He would not have crossed the line in another context.
Gary Lineker is right.
Zionists, and the people who support them, who kill tens of thousands of innocent women, children and civilians ARE “rats” regardless of any historical subliminal reference to perceived antisemitism.
Heretic
10 months ago
Gary Lineker has been a Globalist traitor for a long time since his glory days in football, but I still don’t understand about the rat. I never heard Jews called “rats”, or of rat images being used to refer to Jews.
Jewish people refer to the Goyim as “cattle”, but no one has ever been fired for it, maybe because they didn’t post an image of a cow?
mrbu
10 months ago
Lineker has long abused the platform and celebrity offered to him by his BBC engagements. Good riddance!
I was thinking that in the case of Gary Lineker his views were never based on good argumentation. He always used slurs or derogatory imaging or name calling.
marebobowl
10 months ago
Oh Gary Lineker resigned. The people whomSHOULD resign remain in office, in parliament, in the cabinet. But no, Gary Lineker had to be thrown under the bus for free speech. Another example made by your wonderful gov’t.
Richard
10 months ago
Not that I agree with Gary Lineker’s views, but I do find this a bit ironically hypocritical. One moment I’m reading an article about defending free speech and making laws to stop people being sacked for their political views and the next I’m reading one about how it’s a good thing Lineker has been forced to resign (sacked) over his. Double standards creeping in there. 😉
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
He should have been fired for his anti-brexit religious views. Calling us Nazis. Comparing us to 1930s Germany. But no. You can only get fired for criticising the Jew or Muslim.
You will never get fired calling people who have pride in country, heritage, history, achievements and independence ‘Nazis’. Never.
Gary Lineker doesn’t do anything sensationally. He is a tool.
Gary Lineker is quite entitled to say anything he wishes, as long as it is not illegal. That’s Free Speech.
But the BBC is also entitled to ‘let him go’ (at long last) if he breaches their disciplinary rules.
This is my firm’s social media policy which forms part of my contract of employment. Some of my posts could very easily be considered a “discussion that would adversely affect the Company reputation” and to not “fit with the view the company wants to share online” by someone with standard Establishment left wing views. One reason that I post anonymously. As many of us will work for firms with similar policies, “free speech” in practice is perhaps not achievable. “The Company recognises that employees will have personal social media accounts. Such accounts must only be used to express personal views, and care should be exercised in all cases where you are identifiable as someone employed by the Company. In any event, you must identify yourself as an employee of the Company when promoting our products/services. The Company requires employees using social media sites to refrain from making any comments or engage in discussions, which would adversely affect the Company or the Company reputation, or that of our customers and suppliers. It is also prohibited to breach discrimination legislation or harass or bully an employee or damage working relationships between fellow employees. You must not share any confidential or sensitive Company… Read more »
Why wasn’t he fired for his racist-Brexit views calling us Nazis?
I expect it didn’t upset enough of the right people.
I’m glad that I no longer have a contract of employment, I don’t believe that my final one contained such strictures but there are always all purpose clauses that can be used if the company decides to do so.
Such accounts I have do include my real name, but if I were to start again I would definitely take the anonymous route.
It concerns me greatly that the use of personal devices outside of working hours is covered, I would have thought that would cross the line legally.
I think the clause about personal devices outside working hours may be unenforceable unless the use related directly to your work, but I don’t intend to find out.
I should also say that we’re not a particularly “woke” firm, though some of our clients are, and our founder was – I think the wording above is pretty standard and I doubt the bosses had much to do with drafting it – probably just lifted it from somewhere, for our (tiny) HR department to do it, to tick a box.
We have a similar clause. I can see it being used if an employee posts derogatory comments about a client or staff member for instance.
That would be a reasonable use but we’ve seen plenty of stories about people posting “far right” comments on social media and getting disciplined.
This is well worth reading in full, and covers proposed protections for employees: In Protection of Freedom of Speech, a legal analysis by Francis Hoar. – Workers of England Union
Francis Hoar was one of the few from the legal professional who spoke out and acted against “lockdowns”.
He’s not entitled to say anything he wishes and expect no repercussions, though. Nobody is. It reflects on your employer. Okay, this is probably more applicable when one isn’t employed by an organisation which doesn’t spout Leftist, garbage, woke propaganda on the regular. Certainly his views chime with the Beeb on the whole.
Another example is the pro-terrorist medical staff attending protests ( sometimes posting videos too ) in their works uniforms. Should this be allowed? Absolutely not. But we’re talking about the heavily woke-infested NHS, so they’ll most likely get away with their “freedom of speech” defence when they’re literally supporting terrorism and hating on Jews.
I think normal, reputable organisations would and should discipline their staff for this sort of activism as it reflects badly on them. And what is “illegal” speech, anyway?
I think people need a reality check if they think anything and everything people say is going to be covered by this supposed right to freedom of speech/expression, because it evidently doesn’t work like that in the real world.
“Okay, this is probably more applicable when one isn’t employed by an organisation which doesn’t spout Leftist, garbage, woke propaganda on the regular.”
That’s most large firms certainly in the Anglosphere.
I really wonder whether his take from this story is that perhaps, even a little, he’s a bit too passionate about a topic where you clearly can’t be leaning 100% on one side or another, or is he convinced that he’s yet another victim of the Zionists that rule over everything… For sure those evil forces are quite slow, taking them 2 years to silence him.
Spot on Mogs.
Agreed. Free Speech does not free you from repercussions.
When I was still employed you could be disciplined or sacked for ‘bringing the business into disrepute’. And some people did indeed lose their jobs.
Just as well that you are not still employed otherwise your employer might fire you for posting on a far-right racist conspiracy theory website
Lineker only gets a following because of his position at the BBC otherwise he would just be another ex-footballer.
The Common Law proviso is that free speech is limited if it promotes and incites hatred and violence.
Spreading the type of anti-Jewish propaganda used by National Socialist Germany whose clear aim was genocide, echoed by a Palestinian group whose clear aim is genocide must be tested under that Common Law proviso.
So was it likely there would be individuals receptive to this kind of expression? Yes. If so, would it promote hatred among these receptive individuals? Yes. Would it likely incite to violence? Yes.
We can answer in the affirmative because it is a matter of record that is exactly what happened in Germany in the 1930s/1940s.
I guess I’m going to be one of the dissenting voices on this.
I don’t think anyone should lose their job over their political views.
The idea that it hurts the image of the company is an argument that has been stretched too far.
One thing is to do something criminal or objectively wrong (e.g. steal, kill, rape) that brings your employer into disrepute.
But a political idea is not, or shouldn’t be, something that brings your employer to distrepute. That’s just.mind control and censorship by the back door.
I want a society in which people can have and express their legitimate opinions. If your employer gets to define what is a legitimate opinion, we’re not in a good place.
Just.my view.
I tend to agree. Anyone who disagrees, which they are free to do, should bear in mind that most large organisations in the Anglosphere are left wing dominated – this includes private businesses. Anti-immigration, anti-vaxx etc opinions shared by many on here may well be considered “bringing their employer into disrepute”. It cuts both ways. My doubts are in the area of an employee publicly rubbishing the firm’s own products and services, which seems a legitimate area for disciplinary action. I suppose if you are a very well known public figure and you say things that lots of people take exception to, and that leads to a boycott of the product(s) and service(s) you are getting paid to promote, you could say that you have caused the people who pay you some financial loss, and they could choose not to use you again, not to pay you or even to sue you. It’s something of a special case and very much unlike some private person who is a permanent employee of a firm – most of these public figures won’t be “employees” but effectively freelancers or on specific contracts. I am not sure how I feel about this. On balance… Read more »
Agree 100%
Lineker questioned the Jew narrative. That is as good as a death sentence here (and we can add to this – questioning the queer cult, the trans cult, the muslim cult, the globalist cults, the climate con etc, all guaranteed to get you fired).
I do not agree Stewart and particularly where people have been granted a public platform via their employer, and at the taxpayers expense, to spout political opinions that some will find obnoxious.
Well your opinions on “covid” and many other matters are doubtless considered “obnoxious” by many (not by me) and maybe by your employer. You post anonymously but let’s say you got “outed” online and you happen to work for some taxpayer funded organisation. Would you be happy getting fired?
I agree that, as a general principle, people are entitled to hold and express their personal political views. However, Lineker is so strongly identified with the BBC brand that anything he says is bound to be seen by a significant proportion of the audience as being in tune with the BBC’s views, and therefore no longer perceived as a personal view. The BBC likes to project itself as being impartial (yes, I know!), so when one of its most emblematic stars starts stirring up this kind of controversy it has to take action to safeguard its claimed impartiality. Regardless of the fact that its whole editorial policy has a distinctive political slant.
“But a political idea is not, or shouldn’t be, something that brings your employer to distrepute…”
”… or shouldn’t be…” Have you never met the word “perception”. Life isn’t about “should” it’s about “is”.
Maybe. I’m expressing an idea.
I don’t think less of Amazon or Waitrose or Nike or HSBC bank because an employee of theirs thinks Israeli’s are monsters or thinks Palestians are barbarians, or doesn’t believe in free speech (something I really care about).
To me it says nothing at all about those companies. I’m capable of separating the political beliefs of the employees of a company from the company.
And if I can do it, then anyone can do it. If they want to.
Yes it’s a matter of fashion, which makes money for the media which makes such a connection. Clearly you should not bite the hand that feeds you but generally the default position should be that expressing political or religious opinions should not do this. There would be notable exceptions to this where the expression directly affects the company’s purpose. In linekers case given that the BBC is allegedly neutral he does probably cross the line. He would not have crossed the line in another context.
Gary Lineker is right.
Zionists, and the people who support them, who kill tens of thousands of innocent women, children and civilians ARE “rats” regardless of any historical subliminal reference to perceived antisemitism.
Gary Lineker has been a Globalist traitor for a long time since his glory days in football, but I still don’t understand about the rat. I never heard Jews called “rats”, or of rat images being used to refer to Jews.
Jewish people refer to the Goyim as “cattle”, but no one has ever been fired for it, maybe because they didn’t post an image of a cow?
Lineker has long abused the platform and celebrity offered to him by his BBC engagements. Good riddance!
Is he actually guilty of an even worse sin – he’s completely bland and boring
He probably knew that the US would not be approving his work in the States for the World Cup anyway! They don’t like anti western agitators.
Good grief, so now he’ll have loads more free time. We’ll hear even more of his unasked for views
I was thinking that in the case of Gary Lineker his views were never based on good argumentation. He always used slurs or derogatory imaging or name calling.
Oh Gary Lineker resigned. The people whomSHOULD resign remain in office, in parliament, in the cabinet. But no, Gary Lineker had to be thrown under the bus for free speech. Another example made by your wonderful gov’t.
Not that I agree with Gary Lineker’s views, but I do find this a bit ironically hypocritical. One moment I’m reading an article about defending free speech and making laws to stop people being sacked for their political views and the next I’m reading one about how it’s a good thing Lineker has been forced to resign (sacked) over his. Double standards creeping in there. 😉
Surprised Lineker hasn’t got the FSU to defend him against the sacking by the BBC!