Gary Lineker

Just like the Civil Service, I believe the BBC requires its employees, and especially its most prominent faces, to present political impartiality in all matters. 

I complied with that for 40 years, because that was the contract I signed up to.  Why can't Lineker? 

He has often courted controversy on this, but this time he has crossed a line. 

The Conservative party seems to have lost the plot in terms of the optics.

Looking at the institutions of the country that give us confidence in the country one might include the NHS, the BBC, the Courts, the Police

The party seems to want to appear to attack or weaken all 4. I receive a weekly email from the party which wanders more and more into the absurd long grass. It offers general clues as to direction without SMART objectives or reasoning

If anyone points out problems with these blundering views they get attacked, mainly by the deputy Chairman. Getting too Trumpian for me.

Still bread and circuses may still keep them in power.

The only "H" word he used was "huge".

What he actually said was "language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 1930s" which seems to be a bit of a blatant truism.

Meanwhile, next to the Orwell statue at Broadcasting House...

For me the issue is more that he's been warned before not to make political statements.
his response to the BBC telling him so was a tweet making himself a victim a la harry and memeagain.

he is paid more money per year as a pundit than many many viewers will earn in 20 years, the BBC have a right to ask him to be impartial.

personally I also think he's very two faced when he moans about government cuts etc yet is involved in several tax avoidance schemes, and the comment from his lawyer on a recent investigation, was that HMRC should be looking elsewhere.

the reason he, Fiona Bruce and many other presenters ( even some virtually unknowns) are contractors and not employees is simple they can pay less tax, by having the BBC pay the company that employs them ( owned by them ) for their services, they take some wages and the rest in dividends etc.

Or simply that they do more things than just that one.

Perhaps they are genuinely self-employed, and the BBC is just one of their clients?

B'sides, if they were "disguised employees", as you claim, then they'd fall firmly within the scope of IR35 and be taxed as employees.

There are further constraints on both employees and freelancers.

"The external activities and public comments, for example on social media, of staff, presenters and others who contribute to our output can also affect perceptions of the BBC’s impartiality."

And

"Where our content highlights issues on which others campaign, we must take care not to endorse those campaigns, or allow ourselves to be used to campaign to change public policy."

Excerpts from www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/
(My highlighting)