>> a sportscaster's 20 decisions one of the world's most respected broadcasters spinning -- a sportscaster's tweet sends one of the world's most respected broadcasters spinning into crisis. the bbc suspends then reinstates its best-paid star, promising a review of its own guidelines amid questions over impartiality and political influence. this is "inside story." ♪ mohammed: hello and welcome to the program. i'm mohammad jamjoom. a crisis at the bbc has been

result, for now. it's presenter, gary lineker, is to return to broadcasting. a former star striker and captain of the england national team, lineker presents the bbc's flagship football show and is one of the u.k.'s best-known public figures. his suspension followed a tweet last week in which he called the government's policy "immeasurably cruel" and its "language reminiscent of 1930s germany." fellow commentators and analysts refused to work, resulting in a weekend of carnage on the bbc sports programming. the compromise solution is an inquiry into bbc guidelines at a time when broadcasters are having to grapple with the private opinions of their staff being shared on social media. the director general of the bbc, tim davie, acknowledges that the corporation's current social media guidelines contain great areas b he says enforcing , but impartiality is a difficult balancing act. >> i can tell you that anyone who knows me knows that, yes, 30 years ago, some political

involvement, but absolutely not affected by pressure from one party or the other. that is not how we work editorially in the bbc. it's a convenient narrative, it's not true. and the impartiality guidelines would be equally applied. in terms of being critical of people on the left or the right. the issue is getting involved in party political matters, and we apply that independently. mohammed: lineker took to twitter, saying "i would like to thank tim davie for his understanding during this difficult job. he has an almost impossible job keeping everybody happy, particularly in the area of impartiality. i'm delighted that we'll continue to fight the good fight together." we'll begin our discussion with our guests in a moment, but first let's hear from jonah hull in london. reporter: well, there have been days of intense debate now over the bbc's decision last friday to effectively suspend star sports presenter gary lineker over a tweet he posted on tuesday. in it, he compared the language

being used around the government's new policy towards migrants arriving by small boat to the language used in 1930's germany. it sparked an anguished debate over bbc impartiality and particularly the question of how the organization may have been influenced by right-wing ministers, or the right -ring press, or a right-wing chairman. government-appointed, but with questionable links to former prime minister boris johnson, ed and d-rose of linacre -- and droves of lineker's own colleagues stepped out of their jobs over the weekend in sympathy. well, it's all been resolved now. sort of. lineker reinstated. director general tim davie has apologized to viewers, saying that grey areas were responsible in the corporation social media guidance. he's pledged an independent review looking specifically at

how it affects freelancers outside the news arena, like gary lineker. ♪ guest: alright, now let's get to all our guests. all of them are in london. we're joined by aiden white, founder of ethical journalism network. qays sediqi former refugee and , a human rights lawyer specializing in immigration and asylum law. and stephen barnett, professor of communications at the university of westminster and a former advisor to the house of lords select committee on communications. a warm welcome to you all and thanks so much for joining us today on "inside story." aiden, let me start with you today. did the bbc expect the level of criticism it got when it came to all of this and how damaging has it been for the bbc? guest: no, i mean, i think the bbc were completely taken by surprise, i think. they walked into this car crash and it seems to me that they just weren't aware of the consequences of what they were doing. it seems to me that they weren't aware of the double standards that were clearly being employed here. in recent years, we have seen many tv presenters and

journalists who have expressed themselves robustly on social media, but maintained impartiality while on the air. and gary lineker, who is a veteran in the use of social media, has always been very careful about his un-air pronouncements, and therefore it came as a big shock and surprise when he was suddenly facing attack. there was a great perception that the bbc was being influenced, heavily influenced by some government sources. and i think the perception was that the bbc itself was being bullied to take action against lineker actually led them into the crisis that they found themselves, and they made a complete mess of it because they didn't realize they were stirring up something which would cause a great deal of anger internally and externally. because one, it's an attack on freedom of speech, which is

straightforward. and two, it was clearly being used as a diversion by some government figures to divert attention from the need for a proper public debate about an important piece of government policy. which was making a major shift in attitudes towards migration, and which appear to be in straightforward contradiction to britain's international human rights obligations regarding refugees. guemohammed: aiden, let me just follow up with you with regards to a couple of the points you made. you talked about from your point of view, this being an attack on freedom of speech. but you also talked about the fact that when it comes to social media, there have been other presenters, other journalists who utilize social media in a way that still maintains impartiality. first, i want to ask you how thin is that line these days ? because you have this convergence between traditional media and social media and it seems that that line keeps shifting when it comes to what exactly is acceptable for journalists to be putting out

there on their accounts, on social media. but then also, how big of an attack on freedom of speech do you think this was? guest: i think it was a big attack on freedom of speech. there is a complete difference between the opinions that you give as a journalist, working as a journalist. and i think everyone, knees presenters and others, recognized that when they are on the air, when they are representing the bbc in a particular format, that they have a responsibility for impartiality. when they are off the air, acting as individuals, they have the right to express themselves fully. and the bbc has long recognized this. they have big fingers like ellen sugar and andrew neil, well known in media and outside media, who have been able to express themselves on matters. the moment gary lineker desert, suddenly the bbc is in a state of panic. it gives the perception that it

is a sort of particular point of political view that the bbc has allowed itself to deal with. the real problem here dr. lack of consistency in the way that the bbc applies and has applied its rules regarding doing partiality. the bbc has a strong and admirable ethical base in the way that it works, and that's built its reputation around the world as a premier broadcaster, but its failure to implement its impartiality rules in a consistent manner has called those very rules into question, which is why we've got the mess that we have today. think you are right, of course there is a different these days between -- a difference these days between social media. there is a very narrow line. so everyone has to be very careful in the way that they use social media. i think gary lineker has demonstrated that he is careful. he has taken his time. over the years he has been the subject of criticism, so he's learned to use social media with discretion and with a great deal of respect to the position that he holds. the bbc has found out the hard

way that challenging someone like this, at what appears to be the behest of political pressure, can actually lead to quite devastating consequences. guemohammed: steven, the bbc director general tim davie sent and email took bbc staff where he said that it was a difficult balancing act to get right where people are subject to different contracts and on air positions and with different audience and social media profiles. he also said that he recognized that there are gray areas which have caused potential confusion. one aspect of the story is that gary lineker is a contractor and not a staff member and some have suggested that that could mean that the bbc's social media guidelines do not apply to him. is that a distinction that would be lost on the typical view? >> i don't see why it should be. first of all, we should welcome what is clearly a bbc retraction.

he has apologized for the lack of sports programming, but not for the complete mess, that is entirely at the bbc's making. people are pretty canny these days, and i think aiden got it absolutely right when he said people have the right to express themselves in their own personal capacities, on their social media account, obviously within certain guidelines, assuming that they are not news presenters or involved in news and current affairs. and i think most licensed payers, bbc viewer listeners would recognize that it is perfectly ok for gary lineker, alan sugar, jeremy clarkson, we could list a whole raft of bbc non-news presenters to have their views. they are entitled to their views than entitled to express them. what they are not entitled to do is to use their bbc platform,

i.e., you don't want to see gary lineker talking about politics on "match of the day," and nor would he do that. but i think to start trying to effectively censor popular bbc figures from expressing themselves is actually a recipe for bbc disaster, because what it means in the end is that you will exclude a whole host of popular on-screen talent from ever wanting to work for the bbc. and that would be pretty catastrophic for the bbc as a universal broadcaster with universal appeal. mohammed:let me follow-up and ask you about the difference here between the issue of impartiality, and the issue of independence, because many will criticize the bbc, they suggested it was due at least partly right wing political pressure being applied to the broadcaster, as far as that

being the perception these days. is that suggestion going to be damaging in the long run for the bbc? how much concern is there about that? guest: i think it is very damaging. there are two issues here. one is the very specific political pressure, and there is no question that the government, i think, is in trouble on this asylum bill and is using it as a way to distract people from the fact that what they are wanting to do is, in international law, unlawful. that the other thing that we need to remember in the u.k. is, that insidious influence of the right-wing national press. we have national newspapers in the u.k., particularly "the daily mail" and "the sun," which, certainly used to be the highest selling papers and they are certainly read frequently online, which are pretty

uncompromising in their right -wing stance, particularly on issues of immigration and asylum. there is certainly some evidence that while the lineker tweets were sort of bubbling away under the radar a little bit, it wasn't until the front pages of those newspapers really push to the narrative that this is the bbc being outrageously heart is on, that is started to take off as a big story. we should not underestimate the power of those newspapers to set a right wing agenda, and the importance of the bbc being able to resist and be seen to resist those pressures. i think the other issue that muddies all of this is the position of the current bbc chairman, richard sharp, who is currently under an independent investigation for having his part in brokering a deal. mohammed:steven, i am sorry to

interrupt, i do want to get back to that point with you, but i also want to ask qays, your perspective on the right wing national press in the u.k. pushing a certain narrative. there are a growing number of voices saying this controversy has been a distraction from the real discussion that needs to happen about asylum plans in the u.k.. from your perspective, do you think that is the case? guest: yes, i believe that is a huge coincidence that last week, that illegal immigration bill was introduced, and following that, immediately this controversy ensued. i think there is a political agenda behind all of this. we have seen throughout history that when it comes to general elections, there is a hype about certain people to appeal to a certain dynamic.

and what better way to cause controversy than by targeting the vulnerable groups of people in our society, sylum-seekers? i do think there is an agenda behind this because, otherwise why would there be political condemnation of gary lineker? the other guests have explained it very well. mohammed: there are analysts who say that the government's asylum policies are not going to deter people from trying to get to the u.k. from your vantage point, will these policies actually accomplish with the government once? will it in any way curb migration? guest: i mean, we had the nationality borders act which was only introduced last year, which received assent on the 28th of april. and enough myself, my team and my team and other law firms have been heavily involved in the

rwanda litigation, which was one of the main policy points that they were pushing to reduce the number of small- boat crossings through the english channel. we have seen that it has not had any positive effect. in fact, it has had the opposite effect of what it was intended for, because in 2020, there were only 8000 small-boat crossings across the english channel. in 2021, there was over 25,000, last year there was over 45,000, and this year, it is predicted that it is going to be around 60,000 or more asylum-seekers. it hasn't had a deterrent effect. i personally don't believe it is going to have the effect it was intended for, because even though they have introduced is t

they want to do, the home secretary herself on the first page of the bill have said that she's not even sure she can promise that the bill is not in contravention with the european convention of human rights. essentially saying that she can't promise that for those individuals, human rights will not be breached. and it was followed up by the unhcr/which is the body responsible for the national refugee community, saying that it's a clear breach if their human rights. there are many shortcomings in the bill that it is frankly embarrassing. mohammed: all right, let's take a step back for a moment. gary lineker made another statement on small boats as his return to the bbc was confirmed. he said, "however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn't compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek

refuge in a land far away. it is heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you." aiden, let me ask you about this . this tweet from gary lineker, would this suggest to you that no matter what the review of the bbc social media guidelines ultimately finds, mr. lineker does feel secure in continuing to tweet his opinions, at least on this matter? guest: i think he will. he feels strongly about it, and i think in this particular case, on reflection, he may have actually tweeted the second part of the major point he was making in a slightly different manner. that is a learning experience. but this political question is massively important. we have a major western government about to challenge the 1951 national convention on refugees, which is actually very, very specific. the international convention is very clear, it says that " irregular entry into a country

does not disqualify someone applying for refugee status." it is very clearly a severe breach of international law. that is one thing. i think the government is ready to admit that it is going to be in breach of the law. but secondly, there is something really potentially damaging. already, some countries in europe have indicated that they will be prepared to follow the british route in dealing with migration in the future, and that could lead to a domino effect which could be devastating for the hopes and expectations of people who are fleeing persecution around the world, that europe would be a friendly place for them to go. where international rights would be protected and maintained. unfortunately, i think that what we're seeing here is the possibility that that will be set aside. the final point on why this is such an important and political issue, the lack of self-awareness within the bbc, among its leaders, about their political connections i think

has contributed to what i would call "complacency" in the way they have treated this issue from the start. it's not just richard sharp who has strong tory connections. tim davie has a history of connections with the conservative party and so on. so we know that the leadership, the director general and the chair of the bbc have political connections and political history. that is not without some importance in looking at in the round how the bbc have responded to this debate over asylum, as . mohammed: steven, aiden was talking there about bbc leadership being embroiled in this controversy right now, and i want to get back to a point that you were making earlier. one complicating factor in all this is the issue of bbc's chairman, richard sharp. he's a conservative party donor. he's been linked to arranging a loan for former prime minister boris johnson. he denies any conflict of interest. but there are prominent political voices in the u.k. calling for him to step down from his role at the bbc. so much does all of this complicates the controversy, how

much is it potentially damage the bbc even further? guest: i think it lends the weight, this is the problem, it lends weight to the sense that the bbc is surrendering to a right-wearing government agenda. can you answer that question directly, come back to something that aiden said? that lineker latest tweet, i think was really classy because what he i think he was doing two things. first of all, he was saying. in the in the scheme of things, in the scheme of things, let's not forget the people who are really suffering, that is important. the second thing i think he was making quite clear that he will not stop speaking. and if this review comes up with some kind of formula that prevents him and people like him from speaking their mind on important moral issues, i think he is effectively said, i am out of here. and i think that is really important. sorry, i just wanted to make that point as an addendum.

but coming back to what you are asking about the complication of senior bbc members, the chairman and others, as i say, it lends weight to the sense that there is a one cited agenda. what we have heard really since 2016 in the u.k., since the brexit referendum, is this sort of drumbeat of complaints coming from the right about a liberal bias, a metropolitan elite. and the problem with that constant drumbeat is that i think what you get within the bbc -- and it has happened over decades, over the last 100 years -- that they look over their shoulders and i think "this is what the ruling party is saying about us." this seems to be something that is in the air. and therefore, there is a tendency to overcompensate, to go too far the other way. i think there is a problem with too much

conservative, with a capital c, influence over the bbc. there is a more important cultural issue, which is them looking over their shoulders and being too careful about whether they are going to put off the people in government, that they will alienate members of the government. that has been a real shift in politics in this country, and the bbc is in danger of looking really out of touch with the new politics. mohammed: qays, aiden was speaking earlier about the potential impact that migration policies in the u.k. could have on other countries throughout europe. i wanted to ask you from your vantage point, how much concern is there about the impact that migration policies in the u.k. could have on other countries? guest: from a legal perspective, we have to understand that at the moment with the rwanda litigations all eyes are on us , to see what the outcome of that would be so that other

countries, other european countries can implement it into their legal system as well. all eyes are on us. having to have that sort of pressure on us, we tried to perform. and sometimes when you are trying to do that, you try to do more than you can do, you bite more than you can chew. there is essentially what is happening at the moment with the legal immigration bill. where they are just trying to please and and try to resolve this issue by making and setting sort of targets that they can't meet. that can be quite dangerous in terms of how the political system that we have in place in the sort of people that they try to appeal, and the international

community at large, including the european community. mohammed: you mentioned that rwanda plan. last april the u.k. government put in place a program to deport regular asylum-seekers to rwanda to apply for asylum there. the plan was deemed illegal by u.k's high court but the european court for human rights intervened and they prevented flights carrying migrants from taking off to rwanda. where does that stand now? is the legality of that measure still being debated in court? that guest: guest: is a good point, actually, yes. -- guest: that is a good point, actually, it has. we got into relief last year which prevented the flights from taking off. next month there is a hearing at the court of appeal where the litigation will continue. so that is still pending.

going back to the illegal migration bill, they are saying that they can return individuals to the first country they traveled through. we don't have a returns agreement with european countries, following brexit. we don't have access to the european database. even though rishi sunak did agree last week with france that -- a 480 million pound deal for asylum-seekers vulnerable asylum , seekers must add in detention center, we don't have the returns agreement. litigation is ongoing. they cannot return or remove individuals to rwanda. they can't possibly be returned to the country where they are fleeing from or where they are claiming to have suffered persecution. it just leaves them in limbo. that puts a strain on the

governmental paths. mohammed: all right, we have run out of time and will have to leave the conversation there. thanks so much to all of our guests, aiden white, qays siddiqui and steven barnett. and thank you, too, for watching. you can see the program again, anytime, by visiting our website, aljazeera.com. and for further discussion, go to our facebook page. that's facebook.com/ajinside story. you can also join the conversation on twitter. our handle is @ajinsidestory. from me, mohammed jamjoom and the whole team here in doha. bye for now. ♪ o;o;ó7ó7ow■x■xñtñf?o■ñ ■#■#■#■■wo