Perhaps it was inevitable the spineless bosses at the BBC would fold, but for a while it felt like the vast majority of sane people in the land were hoping they wouldn’t.

That they would stand up to the hysterical voices of newspapers and politicians who would happily see the Corporation shut down, that they would realise no one in their right mind is demanding strictly enforced impartiality from a former England goalscorer and potato chip ambassador.

But here we are anyway, another sign - if any more were needed - that Britain has long since ceased to be a serious country. Gary Lineker will not be allowed to sit in the Match of the Day studio, with other proper football men, and discuss 22 lads kicking a ball about for our entertainment.

It appears the mob who are always bleating on about the evils of so-called cancel culture have succeeded in getting their man cancelled. And for what? The temerity to express a view on politics they disagree with, or the crime of showing even a modicum of human compassion towards those with next to nothing - no power, no voice, no hope.

Much as it pains me to do so, because in any sensible world this really shouldn’t be news, let’s dwell for just a moment on the supposed crime which has been deemed heinous enough to dominate the news agenda.

Following the unveiling of the government’s latest doomed-to-fail attempt to stop the Channel crossings in small boats, Mr Lineker had the cheek to issue a tweet (to his credit, still undeleted) in which he condemned Braverman’s migration bill as “an immeasurably cruel policy” articulated “in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 1930s”.

Cue frothing indignation from the usual suspects who are usually so quick to spit their dummies out whenever their own "free speech" is even marginally threatened.

In a serious country this would have been forgotten almost instantly.

Mr Lineker earns his money talking about a child’s game that has got out of hand. He is not the face of BBC News, he is not a political correspondent, he owes us no impartiality, and our inability to reckon with this is a tragic symptom of a nation which has slipped the moorings of reason for a white-knuckle ride down the rapids of rank stupidity.

It makes you wonder what his enemies find quite so threatening about a man who during his playing time, and in his successful career since, has been widely known as a nice chap almost to the point of blandness. Sure his views are often at odds with the current government, but I think there’s something more to it.

He is the safe face of the national game for millions. It is this that seems to make his willingness to stand up for the marginalised all the more disconcerting for those who would perhaps prefer us not to think deeply about those in small boats. We are being encouraged to see those making the treacherous journey across the Channel as the enemy rather than desperate people who, in the majority of cases, are deserving of our aid and compassion.

I sense he actually speaks for a silent majority in this country who remain of the view that we are at heart a caring nation, and one which should be proud to do its fair share to help those in need.

Disagree with Mr Lineker if you like, and many people do. But ask yourself this: would the baying mob which has gone for him this week have made a peep about impartiality if he - or any other prominent BBC figure in sports or entertainment - had come out tweeting in support of the migration bill? I suspect the answer is no.

I suspect there are an awful lot of supposed free-speech champions who would prefer those who dare to disagree with their policies to know their place, to stick to football, and to shut the hell up.

One hopes that Mr Lineker remains unbowed. After all, he’ll not be short of offers from broadcasters elsewhere, because ultimately his job is to talk about football. Something we’d all, some more than others, do well to remember.