Should the BBC allow Gary Lineker to get away with comparing the Government to Nazi Germany? - Bill Carmichael

If Lineker wants to know what Nazi Germany was really like in the 1930s perhaps he could use some of his vast wealth to buy himself a Ladybird history book.

Personally, I stopped watching Match of the Day some years ago because every time I looked at the host’s smug face I couldn’t help thinking of the desperately poor people, usually working class women, who are sent to prison every year for non-payment of fines for not having a TV licence - all to pay Lineker’s utterly obscene £1.35 million a year salary. What a disgusting, immoral racket.

But should LIneker be free to express his views? As a firm believer in free speech I believe he should.

Besides, why interrupt someone when they are intent on making a complete fool of themselves?

Having said that, how the BBC squares his slanted political opinions with its obligation to impartiality clearly needs an answer.

The BBC says it will have a “frank conversation” with him. Whether his bosses will grow enough backbone to do anything about it, we will wait and see.

To be fair to Lineker, his achingly fashionable views are far from unusual and are widely shared among the establishment elite - from the media, academia, the civil service, trade unions, most political parties, the House of Lords and the church.

What unites all these well-heeled people is that unfettered illegal immigration has no negative consequences for them at all. Indeed, they are all likely to benefit considerably, because high levels of immigration suppresses the wages of the lowest paid, meaning the great and good can save a few bob when employing cleaners, plumbers, gardeners and nannies.

They will never have to wait in a long queue for social housing, or wait for weeks for an appointment with their GP, or find that their local school is oversubscribed and there’s no place for their children, or be pushed out of zero hours, poorly paid job because someone from overseas is prepared to do it for less money.

In short, uncontrolled immigration benefits the rich and punishes the poor, and therefore there is a clear moral case for properly controlling our borders.

And let’s not pretend that the people arriving on small boats are all desperate people fleeing persecution. Some are, for sure, but by no means all.

The average cost of an illicit entry is somewhere north of £6,000 per person, meaning getting to the UK is the reserve of the comparatively rich and privileged. The vast majority of migrants are young men and there is clear evidence of criminal gang activity.

And don't forget that these well off young men are jumping the queue ahead of many more genuine cases who would have a much stronger case for protection under our asylum system if they weren’t being unfairly pushed aside.

The frustrating thing about the small boats problem is that we know exactly how to solve it, because a tried and tested solution was implemented successfully less than a decade ago.

In 2012 and 2013 about 25,000 illegal migrants were entering Australia on small boats every year. By 2014 the numbers had fallen to 157. In the following year it was zero.

How? The Australian government expanded a scheme to offshore asylum applications to Papua New Guinea and Nauru, and declared that no one who attempted to enter the country illegally would ever be allowed to settle in Australia.

Within months this policy entirely broke the business model of the evil people smugglers and the problem was solved for good.

So we know what works, and the new policies announced by the government this week, along with the Rwanda policy, are steps in the right direction.

Rishi Sunak is also travelling to Paris today where he is expected to seek further help from President Emmanuel Macron in stopping the migrant boats leaving French beaches.

But will the establishment blob ever allow this proven solution to be applied? I am afraid I very much doubt it.