I always thought LIneker was a well-meaning and fairly intelligent guy who feels a certain (self appointed) duty to speak out of behalf of the dispossessed. Some would interpret that as a bit of a messiah complex but the guy does have broad popular appeal, considerable reach and influence, and seems like a genuinely reasonable person motivated by good intentions.
It’s certainly a hard one for the BBC because I’m sure they’d rather not be suppressing free-speech Kremlin style but neither can they be seen to implicitly endorse (or oppose) certain political positions deemed “controversial.” So now they end up looking like a bunch of Tories supporting the Home Secretary’s position, in the mind of the average punter/ MOD viewer anyway.
The problem I have is that Lineker is clearly wrong to invoke 1930’s Germany and by doing so he not only loses the argument per Godwin’s law but also shows his ignorance of the past and demonstrates why people shouldn’t run their mouth off about shit they know nothing about.
I would respect him more if he proposed alternative policies and put competing arguments forward, i.e. “we should provide more safe routes for migrants and allocate more funding towards processing their claims and ultimately helping them to become productive members of British society, paid for by increasing tax rates on high earners such as myself for example.”
