Should we also ask ourselves why Katie Hopkins says what she says in public too?
She is criticising Gary Lineker for voicing his opinion on Twitter, suggesting he is not qualified to speak on the topic of immigration - but what qualifies her to take to Twitter to voice her opinion on the topic or on Gary Lineker?
Has she got special powers that qualify her to take to Twitter and comment on all sorts of topics she has little personal experience of?
This “free speech” malarkey throws up all sorts of dilemmas and double standards when folk start exercising their free speech to criticise someone else for doing the same thing.
Are we all hypocrites, supporting free speech when we approve of the message and wanting to gag the folk we very much disagree with?
The principle at stake here is very clear to my mind.
If the Government win this one the next Government, which could be extreme left wing . could also shut down any criticism of them.
I do not like men’s football, in particular I do not like Lineker or any of the other overpaid, self opinionated pundits, a complete waste of space and money.
It is very dangerous however to try to shut them down.
I form my own opinions, they are not formed by celebrities.
It’s got nothing to do with free speech it’s to do with being an employee of the BBC and his contract states that he’s to be politically impartial so even if he’d said something to slag Labour off it would have amounted to the same thing. Yes, you might be able to say, but so and so said so and so in whatever year, but contracts have changed since then.
And then there’s this:
Lineker’s truculence, though, may have deeper motivation than simply a desire of an alpha male to stay at the head of the pack. According to iNews and other sources, the presenter is embroiled in a long-standing dispute with the tax authorities over the status of his relationship with the BBC.
Lineker would have it that he is an independent contractor, which enables him to avoid income tax, with the sum of £4.9 million on the table. But to convince the tax man that this is the case, the presenter needs successfully to argue that he is not subject to the same level of control as BBC employees, that he is not controlled, he’s not supervised and he’s not effectively managed.
To that effect his ability to express personal and political views on social media, without sanction, is an important part of his case, which means that for him to climb down and obey the BBC’s instructions “to keep well away from taking sides on party-political issues or political controversies” could lose him his case, and potentially cost him the best part of £5 million plus whatever additional sum he has so far avoided paying.
Whether Lineker’s fellow mutineers are likewise motivated has not been disclosed, but this additional dimension transcends any claim Lineker might have of this simply being a freedom of speech issue.
The presenter now has looming what might be uncomfortable choice of walking away from the three years remaining of his present contract with the BBC – worth £1.35 million a year – or coughing up a hefty sum to the tax man. For Lineker, this looks to be a lose-lose situation, although license-fee payers might be glad to see the back of him.
It’s a bit rich for Katie Hopkins, of all people, to say someone shouldn’t voice an opinion because they’re not an expert on the subject!
She made her money grabbing troll career based on making outrageous comments on things she’s not an expert on, just to get media coverage and keep the dosh rolling in. And then whinging about being no platformed!
If it’s OK for her to spout on subjects she knows little about just for shock value and money then it’s must be OK for Lineker to give his opinion on something he genuinely believes
But Katie Hopkins, like much of the right-wing anti-woke brigade only believe in freedom of speech for themselves and those who share their opinions, not for anyone who disagrees with them
The woman’s like a publicity vampire. Anything that happens that means someone else is in the limelight, she’s straight in there, giving her “opinion” to try to suck if some of that publicity for herself
There’s a big difference between Lineker voicing an opinion on politics than Katie Hopkins doing so. If Lineker didn’t want to be prevented from voicing his political opinions, then he should have never signed the contract. He could go and work for a company where he’s allowed to say what he wants. There’s loads of ex BBC employees who now work for other broadcasting companies so they can speak freely.
I used to like Sheelagh Fogarty when she worked for the BBC, but can’t stand her now that she works for LBC.
Gary should be allowed to say what he thinks. The BBC is out of order because they are being exposed as a political puppet station. I thought’ you would be on Gary’s side here.
I don’t understand the commotion. It’s another convenient story to distract everyone from real news.
SVB was the main front page headline of FT weekend edition.
There’s a section on Lineker on page 2 with an explanation of the history of due impartiality, it goes back to a decision by the 1990 Thatcher government. The BBC appear to be taking it to the extreme. It wasn’t designed for social media.
I don’t agree with Gary’s views on this but I think he has every right to state those views on social media.
But isn’t the title of this thread MOTD, Lineker and ‘outrage’ boot?
You can start a thread on Katie Hopkins if you feel so strongly.
In the context of this thread we should be focusing on what Katie said, because in the end, it doesn’t matter who said it. It could have been me because I strongly agree with it.
Hey kids, the trend is that the tory led BBC got this wrong and Gary was simply and personally (on his personal feed) voicing an opinion about the rhetoric kicking around about refugees. Now, bleat all you like but he did nothing wrong (compared to that Alan Sugar).
Let me consider - the BBC DG and the BBC chair are both tory supporters. Is that not clear enough for you? Oh, the BBC chief news editor is ex-GBNews. Good grief kids, what more info do you need?
Katie Hopkins just jumps onto anything getting media attention to grabb some of it for herself. She’s a self-interested publicity whore and a hypocrite
And she’s wrong anyway. Every one of us has the right to express an opinion, expert or not
And then everyone else has the right to disagree, express the reverse opinion, and point out our ignorance of the topic, mistakes and inaccuracies if they exist
That’s how freedom of speech works, it’s not for the likes of Katie Hopkins to dictate who is informed enough to be allowed to speak
Whenever I watch MOTD, its recorded, so I can fast forward through all the meaningless guff and cliques, spouted by so called experts. Smug smarmy Lineker is the worst, closely followed by man misery Alan Shearer, plus Ian Wright, Mr “I agree with him” Last night and tonight, bliss, football without any bullshit! The BBC should sack Lineker and Co, the huge amount of money saved would go to making us poor pensioners licence free once again!!
