Mark with an X

Apparently, according to someone who claims to have known him for thirty years, Gary Lineker (BBC football pundit) is no “rabble-rouser”. Apart from using a term which should set sensitivity meters a-flicker, it is nice to have confirmed something that is probably blatantly obvious to anyone who has any kind of inkling of who Gary Lineker is. Yet, this non-rouser of rabbles has recently, if not roused, at the very least, stimulated the ire of that rabble(?) who collectively comprise “Downing Street’, from whom has come forth the declaration that Mr Lineker’s remarks concerning a new asylum bill are “not acceptable”.

Not acceptable to whom, exactly?

Is the current government of the United Kingdom officially denying the right of free speech to its citizens?

Or, just as worrying, is the government claiming for itself some modern iteration of the Divine Right of Kings and thereby placing itself above the criticism of the people?

On what level, exactly, is an elected, democratic (allegedly) government entitled to decide what is and is not acceptable for any member of the electorate to say?

If we allow governments to grant themselves powers to which they were not elected just how far off are we from their declaring that it is unacceptable to vote for a political party other than their own? Something else reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s. As is the very act of prohibiting the right to free speech.

Isn’t it ironic that the more liberal we admire ourselves for being, the more intolerant we appear to be? At some point, was the word ‘liberal’ redefined so it now only applies to the whims of some very small minority?

No surprise, then, that even a “quietly principled” man such as Mr Lineker has found himself ensnared in the machinations of the roused rabble.