Except this isn't actually true.

This is from the BBC website, so is likely to be accurate:-

""It is always regrettable when commentary on matters off the field take the focus away from what's happening on the field. In view of the ongoing dialogue on the subject, I have taken the decision to step back from my work for the BBC for the time being," Vaughan said in a statement.

"The key driver for this is my concern for the wellbeing of my family members and my wish to protect their family life. Stepping back temporarily is also in the interests of the game and I hope that it will minimise any difficulties for my work colleagues."

In a statement, the BBC said: "Following conversations with Michael Vaughan we've accepted his decision to step away from our cricket coverage. This is a decision we respect and understand. Michael remains under contract to the BBC.""

This will all turn on whether the requirement for staff to be impartial is universal, or restricted only to their area of speciality. I didn't care when Jimmy Hill made offensive, right-wing political, and often racist, remarks off-air. I cared when he promoted Coventry City above Palace. I am much more offended by Lineker's unapologetic support for Leicester on MOTD, than I am that he dislikes government policy on immigration in his own time.

This is not only a big test for the BBC, but also for Sunak. Will he resist the push from the right to trample on the BBC or stand up for their right to govern themselves?

It will be both interesting and instructive.

it gives them a chance to bring a bunch of new faces in at a lot less money & see if it has any impact on the viewing figures -

f*** the tories

f*** the tories