When it comes to Lineker, the BBC has scored a spectacular own-goal

When Gary Lineker suggested to Amol Rajan in their interview this week that the BBC didn’t want him to carry on in his role as the presenter of Match of the Day, he wasn’t being paranoid. They really were out to get him. Late last year, when it was announced that at the end of the football season in May, Lineker would be leaving the presentational chair he has occupied for more than a quarter of a century, public statements insisted that both parties had agreed not to re-sign a contract to continue. In football vernacular, it was a mutual decision.

This, allegedly, was not the case. Lineker claims that he had become aware that senior figures at the corporation, including the freshly recruited head of sport Alex Kay-Jelski, would not be entirely unhappy to see him go.

When they were negotiating over what happened next when his contract came to an end, he got the feeling they wanted to see the back of him. It seems, as decisions go, this was about as mutual as Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs on some rocky outcrop in the South Atlantic occupied only by penguins.

Because the fact is, from what I’ve seen, I’d imagine that Lineker was more than keen to stay. He appeared to love presenting the weekly football highlights show. His jovial presenting style suggests that he takes great pleasure in travelling to Salford every Saturday to preside over the preparation and broadcast of the show, ensuring it – and he – is at the centre of the sporting conversation. He may be in his sixties, yet Lineker shows no sign that he wants to slow down, or that his ambition is in any way sated.

But, comfortable in his own skin and even more comfortable in his own bank account (his overall net worth is estimated to be around £30m), perhaps Lineker felt this wasn’t the time to make a fuss or look like a curmudgeon. That’s not Gary’s style, particularly as a compromise was to be reached to enable him to front live coverage of FA Cup and World Cup games for another year.

Which makes you wonder, if he was right – and word within the corporation suggests he was – why on earth would the BBC want to see the back of him? He is, after all, not only the sharpest presenter of sport in the country, but among the finest in any field. Relaxed, funny, adept at bringing the best out of his studio pundits, he is a model for any aspiring young wannabe on precisely how it is done. And it is not easy.

The interesting thing is that in the nostalgic clips Rajan played of Lineker in his early days as a screen presence, he gave very little hint of what was to come. Undoubtedly good-looking (the BBC news report that Rajan showed of him in 1986 returning back from the Mexico World Cup that established his name as a player insisted he was “a big hit with the girls”), he nevertheless appeared cripplingly self-conscious, uneasy, his East Midlands twang blanding out any character.

But, just as he had on the training ground, he worked on his delivery. He had voice coaching. He learned how to relax on camera. By the time of the 1990 World Cup, when he made himself available to television reporters at every opportunity, he was already an entirely different proposition.

And when he retired as a player, his route into a second career on the box was already clear and obvious. Learning alongside the master Des Lynam, he simply got better and better at the job. Now he is untouchable. On screen, he is like your mate in the pub: warm, amusing, approachable.

Well, not everybody’s mate in the pub… Without question, he has his detractors. For those elements keen on deriding the corporation, his salary (at £1.3m) became a stick with which to beat the BBC. This, after all, is taxpayers’ money he is taking (and too much of it, many reckoned). Lynam, incidentally, has long suggested it was his fault that Lineker was propelled into the higher echelons of BBC earners.

In 1999, Lynam defected to ITV to present their short-lived equivalent of Match of the Day. The independent channel had wanted Lineker and Alan Hansen to join their new signing and dangled eye-watering offers in their eyeline. The BBC was obliged to inflate their salary to keep them in place. And ever since, Lineker has benefited from their largesse.

But there is something beyond his salary that infuriates his critics. For them, he is too outspoken on issues outside the game. Stay in your lane, they shout as he makes his liberal views known on social media. When he railed against government policy on asylum seekers, the outcry – in several cases from those who self-define as stalwarts of free speech – was loud, long and vicious. Shut him up, sack him, get rid. In panic mode, the BBC suspended him from duty. Then immediately climbed down when his colleagues demonstrated solidarity by withdrawing their labour.

Lineker told Rajan that, were he gifted the possibility of reliving things, he wouldn’t issue his tweet again. Not because he felt he was wrong. Far from it. But he believed the negative response was entirely out of proportion. And feared the ridiculous brouhaha stirred up by it might bring damage to the show.

So was it this that lay behind his new boss’s thinking: Lineker’s contract is up for renewal, imagine how much easier things would be without all the noise around his salary and his politics?

Which, if true, must be the most self-defeating response in broadcasting history. Noise is precisely what television thrives on. It was Lineker who put the BBC programme at the centre of the national conversation. It was Lineker who made it an appointment to view. It was Lineker who turned a collection of football highlights into compelling television.

But that is what it appears they did at Broadcasting House: they sought an easy life. For sure, all three of those chosen to succeed him are more than capable of holding the fort. Kelly Cates, Gabby Logan and Mark Chapman are all great talents, superb in their own way. But the fact is, none of them are Gary Lineker. More to the point, none of them have the extra cachet that he brings to the job.

Not that we should worry too much about Lineker. His “The Rest Is…” franchise is the most successful brand in podcasting, the broadcasting equivalent of a cash dispenser in the basement of his house in Barnes. So much so, the BBC still employs him – and some of his co-conspirators – to produce soundalike podcasts for them. Clearly, one part of the corporation remains more than aware of what pulls in the crowds. When he finally hangs up his microphone after presenting the World Cup final next July, how they will miss him. As you do when you lose the best.

Marcus Rashford equalises after Bernardo Silva’s opening goal – live

Manchester City face Aston Villa in the Premier League tonight, with both sides looking to land a potentially vital blow in the race for Champions League qualification.

City start the week in the qualification spots after last weekend’s 2-0 win over Everton, though they are only a point ahead of seventh-placed Villa with five games left to play.

While Pep Guardiola’s side have favourable fixtures as they look to book a place in the top five, a win tonight could be key against an in-form Villa side.

And Unai Emery’s team – who face a more difficult path to make it back to Europe’s top cup competition – will be buoyed by recent performances as they look to leapfrog City for now.

Follow all the latest build-up, team news and updates from the Etihad below:

Keir Starmer no longer believes trans women are women

Sir Keir Starmer no longer believes trans women are women in the wake of last week’s landmarkSupreme Court ruling.

The prime minister has previously said that “trans women are women”, but asked to repeat that statement on Tuesday he pointed to the judgment, which ruled the term woman referred to biological sex, saying it had “answered that question”.

Downing Street later confirmed the U-turn. Asked if the PM still believed that a transgender woman was a woman, his official spokesman said: “No, the Supreme Court judgment has made clear that when looking at the Equality Act, a woman is a biological woman. That is set out clearly by the court judgment.”

His comments came just hours after the equalities minister Bridget Phillipson said trans women should use male toilets, adding that “services should be accessed on the basis of biological sex”.

In last week’s long-awaited judgment, the UK’s highest court confirmed the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act “refer to a biological woman and biological sex”.

Asked about the issue on Tuesday, Sir Keir said that a woman was an “adult female”. And, in his first public comments since the justices’ decision on 16 April, the Labour leader said he was “really pleased” with the clarity offered by the court’s ruling.

He said the judgment was a “welcome step forward” adding: “It’s real clarity in an area where we did need clarity, I’m pleased it’s come about. We need to move and make sure that we now ensure that all guidance is in the right place according to that judgment.”

In March 2022, before he entered No 10, Sir Keir told The Times that “a woman is a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women, and that is not just my view, that is actually the law”.

A year later he appeared to change his position, stating that 99.9 per cent of women “haven’t got a penis”.

In recent days former Supreme Court judge Jonathan Sumption has warned that organisations are potentially misinterpreting the landmark ruling, arguing it did not create an obligation to provide single-sex spaces.

Instead, Lord Sumption argued that while many have taken the ruling to mean that service providers are obliged to provide single-sex spaces based on biological sex, the ruling meant that excluding transgender people from single-sex spaces was allowed, and not a breach of the 2010 Equality Act.

Ronnie O’Sullivan leads Ali Carter on snooker return at the Crucible

Ronnie O’Sullivan had to settle for a single-frame overnight advantage as the opening session of his World Snooker Championship first-round clash against old foe Ali Carter failed to live up to its pre-match hype.

The seven-time champion, returning to the tour for the first time since dumping his cue after losing a Championship League match in January, looked to have scrapped out a 6-3 lead to take into Wednesday afternoon’s scheduled conclusion.

But Carter dug deep after O’Sullivan jawed a long red to the top corner in the final frame of the day, gradually erasing a 51-point deficit and nervelessly clearing the colours to cut his overnight deficit to 5-4.

Prior to Carter’s impressive recovery, breaks of 107 from both men had proved the highlights of an error-strewn affair.

The sluggish display on the table was mirrored by relative serenity off it as the pair, who have engaged in a long-running and highly publicised feud over the course of their careers, shared a warm handshake prior to the opening break.

O’Sullivan and Carter famously barged shoulders during Carter’s 13-9 win in the second round in 2018 and recriminations flew after O’Sullivan’s Masters final win in 2023, with Carter accusing his rival of “snotting” all over the floor and O’Sullivan responding by saying Carter should “get a life”.

After sharing the first two frames here, O’Sullivan took the third when Carter failed to punish him for leaving a red dangling over the pocket, and the 49-year-old’s subsequent century then put him in command at 3-1.

Carter once again reduced the deficit but missed the simplest of straight reds on a break of 60 in the sixth and allowed O’Sullivan to clear up and regain his two-frame lead.

For all his evident rustiness, O’Sullivan was clearly still capable of keeping a misfiring Carter at bay and a knock of 85 in the next sent him three frames clear.

But Carter responded with a 107 of his own then seized his chance in the final frame of the day with a fine clearance.

Ding Junhui was made to work overtime by qualifier Zak Surety before booking his place in round two for the first time in five years with a 10-7 win.

Ding, the 2016 finalist, had threatened to blow shell-shocked Surety off the table in Monday’s opening session, winning the first four frames and probably counting himself unfortunate to lead only 6-2 overnight.

It was a different story on Tuesday as Surety reeled off four centuries in the opening five frames to become the first player to hit four hundreds on his Crucible debut.

That helped him narrow the deficit to 7-6 and then 8-7 before the Chinese player’s experience told and consecutive breaks of 116 and 75 saw him through.

Shaun Murphy made a strong start to his bid for a second world title 20 years after his first as some heavy scoring saw him take a commanding 7-2 lead against Daniel Wells.

Masters champion Murphy and debutant Wells each made two centuries in a high-quality session but a run of four frames in a row proved the difference as Murphy flexed his muscles.

Zhang Anda leads fellow Chinese player Pang Junxu 5-3 after winning the final two frames of their marathon session.

Nothing is more toxic than a school parents’ WhatsApp group

There is nothing worse than scrolling through the school WhatsApp group when all the class parents are having an epic meltdown over some teacher-related issue – and then finding yourself in the firing line when you get involved.

It’s bad enough when it’s just relentless messaging about “Has anybody got the homework?” or “Did anybody take Fleur’s Mini Rodini animal print jacket by mistake? She left it on her peg. It’s rather expensive. Argh!!”.

It never stops – even over the Easter holidays. But when a real crisis kicks off about a mean teacher keeping them in at playtime, or another teacher quitting, it’s explosive.

Parent WhatsApp groups are so out of control that now schools are reportedly asking lawyers to draw up codes of conduct to help manage them.

It comes after a Times Radio producer, Maxie Allen, and his partner, Rosalind Levine, were arrested on suspicion of harassment and malicious communications after complaining on WhatsApp chats about the teacher recruitment process at their daughter’s UK primary school.

CCTV footage shows six police officers leading them away like they are mafia kingpins in front of their crying daughter. They were detained in a police cell for 11 hours, but after a five-week investigation, Hertfordshire Constabulary concluded there was no case to answer.

It’s an extreme scenario, but maybe the dangers of the class WhatsApp finally need to be taken more seriously.

The concern for schools is that they could be found liable if parent WhatsApp groups are used to spread misinformation or racist and homophobic abuse about teachers. Under the new Employment Rights Bill, teachers may be able to sue their employer if they receive abuse in a parent WhatsApp group.

But what this bill fails to tackle is the abuse parents like me have suffered at the hands of the same group chats, just like the poor teachers do.

I’ve often felt bullied in the class WhatsApp – the parents can be even worse than the kids. Unless I switch it on silent or delete the app, it takes out half my day – and has the potential to trigger anxiety (before I’ve suffered what can feel like a character assassination).

I may not be the most forthcoming helper at the school, as I’m a single working mum of two kids – and I just can’t stretch myself to the limits. Maybe the truth is, I should be doing more for the class.

But I don’t need it to be rubbed in – and chastised by other parents who have taken it upon themselves to throw themselves into WhatsApp chats like it’s the US presidential elections.

I do not appreciate being put on a WhatsApp hit list of parents who do nothing – and shunned at the school gate. Sorry, I didn’t manage to get a Fortnum & Mason hamper for the teacher’s end of year present, or bag the school a major sponsorship deal for the fun run.

But I don’t deserve all the WhatsApp mini-lectures on how more of us parents could help out – “even dads!”. Yes, we all know who we are!

Sometimes the class WhatsApp goes wild for three hours before dying down in a phenomenon known as “swarming”. If you happen to jump into the heated debate, as I’ve done, at an emotionally heightened moment, you can get heckled and shouted down loudly like you’ve been plonked in Prime Minister’s Question Time.

I’ve had secret talks with other mums in the local coffee shop who’ve been hapless victims of the class WhatsApp to work out other class parents’ agendas. Is all the finger-pointing to make themselves look perfect? Is it about getting in the headteacher’s good books?

After one epic WhatsApp takedown, I switched the class WhatsApp to silent for about two months for my sanity.

Luckily, it was the end of term, so the long summer break gave us all some distance. I’ve never recovered from it – and I have one simple rule: Do not get involved in any major discussions such as what’s being taught in sex education classes.

I’ve had other major mishaps, such as when my daughter accidentally used the scribble tool on WhatsApp to deface a photo sent on the class group chat at Christmas.

“Why would somebody do something like this?” an upset parent messaged the whole group. As it was Christmas Eve, I hadn’t been checking the class messages when it flared up into a mass debate. My silence probably made it worse. They all seemed to be waiting for my explanation.

It’s not just the class WhatsApp: I have fallen out with my half-siblings over a family group chat called “What we are going to do with dad”. Any large group chat seems to brings out the worst of humanity – but I believe none more so than parent WhatsApps.

OK, they are handy at certain times – for remembering it’s World Book Day, for example – but most of the time they feel toxic. I wholeheartedly sympathise with the teachers being gossiped about; it can feel like a witch hunt.

I’ve made the fatal mistake of not scrolling back through hundreds of messages that morning to spot that I should be welcoming a new parent to the class WhatsApp. Then when a few hours later I innocently ask “Is the school trip tomorrow?”, I’m ignored.

For some parents, the class WhatsApp is a full-time job. But we are all different – and the parent WhatsApp should not be a place to name and shame others. Rather than police the class group chat, schools should ban them. They are insufferable at the best of times – and it’s time we ended their reign.

What smart investors need to know about changing status symbols

“It’s not a bag, it’s a Birkin.”

In 2001, Sex and the City introduced us to the Hermès Birkin, with character Samantha Jones being told there was a five year waiting list for would-be buyers. The fashion set’s favourite accessory went mainstream.

The Birkin continues to sell well over 20 years later, both new and second hand. Resale values have reportedly risen faster than gold. The Birkin has helped Hermès to outperform in what has been a torrid time for luxury brands.

But how long can that appeal sustain?

Celebrity Traitors full-line up ‘revealed’

The full lineup for the first ever celebrity version of The Traitors has been announced.

Filming for the all-star version of the game show phenomenon has officially begun, with 19 famous faces entering the Scottish castle, where host Claudia Winkleman will decide whether they’re playing as Faithfuls or Traitors.

Contestants, as leaked by The Sun, include broadcasters, an Olympian and actors who have appeared in everything ranging from Line of Duty to Ted Lasso and Bridget Jones.

Leading the crop of celebrity contestants is Stephen Fry, the QI host who reportedly “jumped at the chance to appear” on the series.

He’ll be joined by comedian Alan Carr, presenter Jonathan Ross and Good Morning Britain host Kate Garraway.

Actor wise, British thespian Celia Imrie, whose credits include Calendar Girls and The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Nick Mohammed, best known as Nathan “Nate” Shelley in Ted Lasso, and EastEnders star Tameka Empson (Kim Fox), are set to play the game.

They’ll join Mark Bonnar, who appeared in the BBC crime procedural series Line of Duty as DCC Mike Dryden.

Irish star Ruth Codd, known for the Netflix series The Midnight Club, will be entering the castle, also, with singers Paloma Faith, Charlotte Church and Brit Award-nominated singer Cat Burns also on the contestant list.

Joe Wilkinson, the comedian known for panel shows including 8 Out of 10 Cats, as well as recent Prime Video series Last One Laughing, will also participate.

Another comedian, Lucy Beaumont, who is the ex-wife of 8 Out of 10 Cats star Jon Richardson, has also been tapped by producers to appear on the show.

Sports broadcaster Clare Balding will also enter the castle as will Olympic swimmer Tom Daley, who is believed to have selected Celebrity Traitors over Strictly Come Dancing, and professional England rugby player Joe Marler, who has won the Six Nations three times.

Rounding out the contestants for the inaugural celebrity series are Professor David Olusoga, a Bafta-winning historian and author of numerous best-selling books, and YouTube prankster Niko Omilana.

A BBC spokesperson told The Independent: “The Traitors includes lies and deception, so it would be foolhardy for any Faithful to speculate before the game has begun.”

It’s official – Donald Trump is bad for the world economy

Though covered by a thin veneer of nuanced “econospeak”, the message of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) could not be clearer: Donald Trump is bad for the world economy and will make America poorer, not wealthier – now, tomorrow and far into the future.

The assessment of the IMF’s economists – who are listened to intently by investors, even if not President Trump – is damning. The downgrade in the growth forecasts for the United States this year alone amounts to almost 1 per cent of GDP – a loss of some $200bn, of which about half is a direct result of the tariffs announced on and after the ironically named “Liberation Day” on 2 April. Mr Trump was at least wise to postpone his foolish initiative by one day.

The losses to output and the negative effects on the living standards of Americans will continue to accumulate well into the long term. Rather than “trillions” of dollars flowing into the US Treasury, the impact of tariffs will be negative virtually everywhere on the planet. Trade wars have no winners and countless losers. As Mr Trump said, no other president has ever done anything like this before – but it’s not in a good way.

At least some of the rest of the collapse in world growth prospects also derives from the chaos and confusion that Mr Trump has brought to economic policy-making. For a time, it looked as if trade between the US and China would virtually cease. That panicked markets, so, for a change, the usual roles were reversed.

The latest example of Mr Trump’s expensive forays into economic policy is his description of the chair of the US Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, as “a loser”. The president has not only taken the unprecedented step of threatening to sack Mr Powell, but also of declaring his intention to be rid of the world’s leading central banker as soon as possible.

Mature economies do not do such things. It would be unlawful, which doesn’t seem to trouble Mr Trump, and it has deeply unsettled financial markets – and that should concern every American and every government in the world.

It is already the case that Mr Trump has wiped trillions off the value of equity and bond markets around the world. He seems to sense that he already needs to blame someone, apart from perfidious foreigners, for the continuing disaster – which is why he’s urged Mr Powell to cut interest rates.

In a typically unnuanced social media post, the president warned: “There can be a SLOWING of the economy unless Mr Too Late, a major loser, lowers interest rates, NOW.” Unfortunately for Mr Trump, even he hasn’t the power to bully or fool the world’s investors, and the effect of a series of his impetuous, ill-considered statements has been to crash equities, bonds and the dollar – a particularly alarming combination, given that investors normally flee to US Treasury bonds in times of stress.

This time, it’s America that’s becoming a more risky place to keep one’s money; gold, German government bonds and the Swiss franc have been the choice beneficiaries of this crisis of confidence in Mr Trump’s administration.

It’s poignant to recall Mr Trump’s social media post just before polling day: “If Kamala wins, you are 3 days away from the start of a 1929-style economic depression. If I win, you are 3 days away from the best jobs, the biggest paychecks, and the brightest economic future the world has ever seen.” The markets have, so far, had their worst April since 1932.

The “Trump Slump” may not be far off. While the IMF doesn’t expect a recession in America this year, it has raised the probability of two successive quarters of contraction from 25 per cent to 37 per cent – much too high for comfort. Inflation, including those groceries Mr Trump pays so much attention to, will also increase. So much for making America great again.

Not the least of America’s concerned allies is the United Kingdom. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, is in Washington to hear for herself the IMF’s gloomy prognosis for the British economy. Inevitably, as Britain’s second-largest trading partner, a major holder of dollar-denominated assets and a leading investor in the US, when America catches a cold, the British tend to get pneumonia.

The downgrade for British growth next year is thus substantial – down to 1.4 per cent, with inflation peaking at the highest rate in the major G7 economies later this year. The hit to British GDP and tax revenues will only add to the pressures Ms Reeves faces as she attempts to put the public finances on a sustainable footing, and that is inevitably bad news for public services.

Much of this reversal in British fortunes is because of the choices the Trump administration has made in its economic policy – and, even worse, the uncertainty surrounding how long any of its policies will survive before another presidential whim throws everything in the air again.

All the more reason, then, that when Ms Reeves meets her American counterpart, Scott Bessent, she will need to press the case for that most elusive of Brexit benefits – the fabled US-UK free trade agreement. In reality, such is the present febrile geopolitical environment and the immensely complex nature of a full trade treaty (as well as the resistance of entrenched vested interests in Congress), that the deal will be less ambitious.

Nonetheless, a relaxation of the recent hikes in tariffs, a harmonisation of digital and biotech taxation and regulation, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and other measures could provide a welcome boost to the UK’s greatly denuded growth prospects. Britain will be required to make some hard choices and, as in all such trade deals, there will be winners and losers.

But the UK needs to rebuild its economy and return it to sustainable growth. In the long run, in principle, linking with what, even now, remains the world’s most dynamic economy carries enormous potential. If the Starmer administration manages to pull that off, conclude the long-awaited deal with India, and, crucially, achieves the overdue Brexit “reset”, then it might start to dream about Britain breaking out of its economic stagnation.

Grim as the IMF forecasts are, things can get better.