-
You've got to wonder what the back story to how this all played out was.
My understanding is that:
- Gary tweets
- BBC tells him to remove the tweet as it "breaches the impartiality guidelines"
- Gary says no
- BBC slaps him
I can understand that in between 1. and 2. there is some reflexive response from someone - person A gets a call from B who says "yo, have you seen Liniker's tweet? Tell him to wind his neck in". So person A asks for the tweet to be removed.
But between 3. and 4. you'd have thought that person A would have checked how strong their position was, right? I mean he's a big name not a budding weather presenter on the One Show trying to climb the slippery stick. You'd want to know what your next couple of moves are surely.
So without getting too 4d chess about it, there must have been a strategy to this. So I wonder what the aim was?
- Gary tweets
hugo7-
A would have checked how strong their position was, right?
BBC aren't obliged to put Gary in front of a camera, as far as I can tell. They can just pay him and his team to twiddle their thumbs.
Obvs. it looks bad, but the current regime can say 'stupid contract we wouldn't write today' or something.
-
I think there something missing from your time line, on Thursday the BBC said no action would be taken, at which point pressure has been applied by somebody(s) and on Friday he's suspended.
As I understand it he's got a similar contract to Andrew Neil, which allowed him to air his hard right views outside of BBC time with out any issue.
-
So without getting too 4d chess about it, there must have been a strategy to this. So I wonder what the aim was?
Hanlon's razor applies here
Howard
HousecatHST
atz
Someone at the BBC read Lineker's contract: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gary-lineker-bbc-not-sacked-b2299040.html