Gary Lineker has escaped police action over his controversial social media post featuring an anti-Semitic rat emoji, with the Metropolitan Police confirming they will not pursue the Match of the Day presenter despite multiple complaints from upset members of the public.
Scotland Yard revealed yesterday that after “assessing reports” about the incident, officers concluded no criminal offence had been committed – though the decision has sparked fierce debate about double standards in policing social media.
The controversy erupted when Lineker, 64, shared a post containing imagery that critics said perpetuated harmful Jewish stereotypes. The BBC’s highest-paid star, who earns £1.35 million annually, initially defended the post before eventually deleting it amid mounting backlash.
We received several reports about a social media post,” a Met spokesperson confirmed. “Officers have assessed the content and concluded it does not meet the threshold for criminal prosecution. No further action will be taken.”
The decision has left some complainants furious, with community leaders questioning whether the same leniency would be shown to ordinary members of the public who shared similar content.
It seems there’s one rule for celebrities and another for everyone else,” said David Goldman, who filed one of the complaints. If I’d shared something with anti-Semitic imagery, would the police be so quick to dismiss it?
Lineker had shared the post while commenting on political matters – something he’s repeatedly been warned about by BBC bosses concerned about impartiality. The rat emoji has historically been used in anti-Semitic propaganda, making its appearance particularly inflammatory.
Campaign Against Antisemitism expressed “disappointment” at the police decision. While we respect the Met’s assessment, this sends a concerning message about how seriously anti-Semitic imagery is taken when shared by public figures,” a spokesperson said.
The incident reignited debates about Lineker’s social media use, which has repeatedly landed him in hot water with BBC management. Despite earning more than the Prime Minister for presenting football coverage, he’s maintained an active presence on X (formerly Twitter), sharing political opinions that critics say breach BBC guidelines.
Gary seems to think the rules don’t apply to him,” one BBC insider said. He gets away with things that would see other presenters marched out of Broadcasting House.
Sources close to Lineker insisted he hadn’t realised the anti-Semitic connotations when sharing the post. “Gary was mortified when it was pointed out,” one friend claimed. “He would never knowingly share anything anti-Semitic. He deleted it immediately when he understood the concern.”
But critics argued ignorance was no excuse for someone in his position. He’s got 8.5 million followers,” said media commentator Sarah Mitchell. “He has a responsibility to check what he’s sharing. You can’t just claim ignorance when you’re one of Britain’s most influential broadcasters.
The Met’s decision comes amid heightened sensitivity around anti-Semitism following the October 7 attacks and ongoing Middle East conflict. Police have faced criticism both for over-policing some social media posts while seemingly ignoring others.
“There’s no consistency,” complained Rachel Stevens, who monitors online hate. “We’ve seen people arrested for far less offensive posts, yet a celebrity shares actual anti-Semitic imagery and nothing happens.”
The row has also renewed calls for the BBC to take stronger action over Lineker’s social media activity. The corporation has repeatedly found itself defending or distancing itself from his posts, leading some to question whether his value as a presenter outweighs the constant controversies.
Conservative MP James Henderson said: “How many warnings does Lineker need? He’s paid a fortune by the licence fee payer to talk about football, not share offensive content on social media.
The BBC declined to comment on whether Lineker would face internal disciplinary action, saying only that they had “reminded Gary of his responsibilities regarding social media use.
For his part, Lineker has remained characteristically defiant, though he hasn’t directly addressed the police decision. Friends say he views the whole episode as a “storm in a teacup” blown out of proportion by his critics.
“Gary thinks this is just another attempt to silence him,” one associate revealed. “He’s deleted the post, what more do people want?”
Jewish community leaders, however, warned that dismissing such incidents sends the wrong message. “When public figures share anti-Semitic imagery, even unknowingly, it normalises ancient hatreds,” explained Rabbi David Stern. The fact police won’t act is concerning.
The incident has highlighted the complex challenges facing law enforcement in policing online content. While some posts result in dawn raids and criminal charges, others – even those containing recognised hate symbols – are deemed not to meet the criminal threshold.
Legal expert Jennifer Woods explained: “The bar for prosecution is actually quite high. You need to prove intent to stir up hatred, not just sharing something offensive. That’s harder with someone claiming ignorance.”
Some supporters rallied behind Lineker, arguing the reaction was overblown. He made a mistake and deleted it,” wrote one fan on social media. “Move on. There are bigger problems in the world.”
But others pointed to a pattern of controversial posts from the presenter, suggesting this was just the latest in a long line of social media mishaps that the BBC seems unwilling or unable to address.
Any other employee sharing anti-Semitic content would be sacked,” said former BBC presenter Michael Collins. But Gary’s untouchable because of Match of the Day ratings. It’s pure hypocrisy.”
The Met’s decision not to pursue action doesn’t end Lineker’s troubles entirely. The BBC is still conducting its own review of the incident, and pressure continues to mount from licence fee payers tired of the constant controversies.
For now, though, Lineker appears to have weathered another social media storm – protected by his celebrity status, his value to the BBC, and a police force that decided sharing anti-Semitic imagery doesn’t constitute a crime worth pursuing.
As one frustrated complainant put it: “Same old story. If you’re famous enough, you can get away with anything. The rest of us would be getting a knock on the door at dawn.”
