Any thoughts on Gary Lineker’s tweets?

[WatcherZero]

Philip Hammonds interview was interesting, he said he didnt think the BBC was biased in either direction separating him from his colleagues attitude but then he said he didnt think any BBC employee, civil servant, or employee of any company in general had a right to private free speech as anything they said would reflect on their employer which seemed an extremely authoritarian attitude to me.

 

[Falcon1200]

The people against freedom of speech here

Who is against freedom of speech? The issue is not that Gary Lineker should be prevented from saying what he thinks, but that as a senior and highly respected representative of the BBC he has to abide by that organisation's standards. These appear to have been explained to him before, but he has chosen to ignore them, presumably believing himself to be untouchable. If he does not wish to abide by those standards, he is perfectly free to terminate his BBC contract and seek employment elsewhere. I doubt he would struggle to pay the mortgage or put food on the table.

And you cannot deny the parallels...

Yes we can, Germany in the 1930s is in no way whatsoever comparable to the UK today.

This rather misses the point though. It’s a freedom of speech issue

No it is not, as above. Not even if he was proposing to repeat his comment's on last night's Match of the Day, and was stopped from doing so by being dropped, which I doubt was the case.

Lineker isn't an employee of the BBC

This keeps getting repeated, but it is a spurious distinction; He works for the BBC, and is paid by the BBC, in a senior and extremely high profile role.

The other issue is that he is a senior presenter on the BBC, and therefore people are aware of him and as a result he has presumably got thousands of Twitter followers.

Yes, in fact he has over 8 million Twitter followers! And he is absolutely free to continue posting his thoughts and opinions, and IMHO he certainly should, BUT he either has to abide by the BBC's impartiality standards, or cease working for them. In no way whatsoever should Gary Lineker be silenced, nor can he, in the age of mass instant communication. However, he has responsibilities as well as rights.

 

[Gloster]

One point that seems to have been missed is that, although there is a slight lack of clarity, there has long been a principle that, although news and current affairs presenters must take particular care to be neutral, sports and general entertainment ones are on a much looser rein. Lineker is a sports presenter who does not do any current affairs, as far as I am aware, who has commented on his own twitter feed on a matter which he is known to be concerned about. His language was moderate, unlike what he was commenting on, and would normally be seen in any reasonable discussion as ‘fair comment’. He does not appear to straying outside the normal bounds of reasoned discourse on Twitter, such as it is, or to have broken any of the terms of any agreement that he may be bound by.

The BBC’s difficulty is that there are already problems with the perception of their separation from the government as both the Chairman, who is supposed to maintain its indepependence, and the Director-General are both close to the Conservative Party. They give the impression that they have decided to come down like a ton of bricks on a presenter who has criticised the government‘s current behaviour for no reason other than to protect the government.

 

[DustyBin]

No it is not, as above. Not even if he was proposing to repeat his comment's on last night's Match of the Day, and was stopped from doing so by being dropped, which I doubt was the case.

It’s not clear though what standards he actually broke, or even what standards he is contractually bound by. “We don’t like you saying this stuff” isn’t grounds for formal action. Whilst I suspect Lineker expected somebody to have a word, the BBC have shot themselves in the foot by making it official.

 

[chorleyjeff]

He tweets in a personal capacity. He’s not directly employed by the BBC. Best of luck to him. It’s a shame, but very unsurprising that the official opposition doesn’t say much. Not surprising as they’ve rapidly turned into a lukewarm version of the tories.

He is employed as a ( very expensive ) contractor. His contract will specify the terms and conditions of how his services are provided. I think we need to know how those terms and conditions are written especially with regard to public views on party political matter before we can consider whether the BBC stance is reasonable in relation to his public statements.
And let's consider whether his acolytes should be paid £400,000 pa for superficial cliche comments on Saturday evening. Just a question of licence payer value for money.
And the others on the gravy train that is top tier professional football today.

 

[dosxuk]

Yes we can, Germany in the 1930s is in no way whatsoever comparable to the UK today.

It's also not the comparison that Gary Lineker was making, despite what the Tory party and certain parts of the press would like people to think.

BUT he either has to abide by the BBC's impartiality standards, or cease working for them.

The problem, as the DG had hinted at, is that the BBC's impartiality standards aren't worth the paper they're written on. Their actual policy specifically calls out sports presenters as not needing to follow the same rules as someone in news or current affairs.

When he was appointed, Davie tried to silence critics of his political background by going all in on "impartiality", however it doesn't seem to have occurred to him or the BBC board that having every person appearing on the BBC sign up to their news standards of impartiality isn't going to work in the real world. Now they're trying to apply stricter standards to Lineker and it's opened a real Pandora's box which they were poor prepared to deal with, especially with the current furour over the chairman.

While many people have talked about Lineker needing to stick to the rules, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the rules the DG want him to abide by are not in his contract and not written down anywhere. I don't see this situation ending well for either the DG or Chairman, and it's entirely a situation of their own making.

 

[nw1]

Who is against freedom of speech? The issue is not that Gary Lineker should be prevented from saying what he thinks, but that as a senior and highly respected representative of the BBC he has to abide by that organisation's standards. These appear to have been explained to him before, but he has chosen to ignore them, presumably believing himself to be untouchable. If he does not wish to abide by those standards, he is perfectly free to terminate his BBC contract and seek employment elsewhere. I doubt he would struggle to pay the mortgage or put food on the table.

What do we mean by "the organisation's standards?" Doing whatever Rishi and Suella tell them to do?

And, if impartiality is so very important, why is Lord Sugar allowed to say what he likes? Why is he allowed to publicly support Boris Johnson as Tory leader (Twitter, 2019):

I seriously back @BorisJohnson to be the new PM . The public like him and he will have a good chance of winning the general election in 2021 if not before. Any one who can stop @jeremycorbyn from becoming PM has my backing .

https://twitter.com/Lord_Sugar/status/1139479990955851776

Why is he allowed to apparently draw parallels between Jeremy Corbyn and Hitler?

Alan Sugar deletes Corbyn Hitler tweet after backlash

The businessman withdraws a tweet featuring Jeremy Corbyn in a car with Hitler, after online backlash.

www.bbc.co.uk

Why is he allowed to slag off Mick Lynch? Why is he allowed to personally abuse people who respond to his tweets? Not because he is "politically correct" in the eyes of the Conservatives, perchance?

And why is it allowed for a Tory donor with close links to Boris and Sunak to be the head of the BBC?

Yes, in fact he has over 8 million Twitter followers! And he is absolutely free to continue posting his thoughts and opinions, and IMHO he certainly should, BUT he either has to abide by the BBC's impartiality standards, or cease working for them. In no way whatsoever should Gary Lineker be silenced, nor can he, in the age of mass instant communication. However, he has responsibilities as well as rights.

And of course, these impartiality standards do not apply to Sugar or Sharp, because they generally espouse right-wing views, which are of course perfectly acceptable in this increasingly corrupt nation. We need to welcome critics of government (of whatever colour), not silence them.

And incidentally, I also think Sugar should be free to say what he likes, however much rubbish he spouts. It's the hypocrisy, the difference in treatment between Sugar and Lineker, that I object to.

 

[Darandio]

Yes we can, Germany in the 1930s is in no way whatsoever comparable to the UK today.

It's probably a good job he didn't say that then. Good to see the Tory propaganda machine is working it's magic though.

 

[GusB]

He is employed as a ( very expensive ) contractor. His contract will specify the terms and conditions of how his services are provided. I think we need to know how those terms and conditions are written especially with regard to public views on party political matter before we can consider whether the BBC stance is reasonable in relation to his public statements.
And let's consider whether his acolytes should be paid £400,000 pa for superficial cliche comments on Saturday evening. Just a question of licence payer value for money.
And the others on the gravy train that is top tier professional football today.

This! So many people have been banging on about Lineker's contract while not having the slightest idea what is actually written within that contract. We'll never know because it'll be protected as "commercially confidential".

 

[nw1]

Philip Hammonds interview was interesting, he said he didnt think the BBC was biased in either direction separating him from his colleagues attitude but then he said he didnt think any BBC employee, civil servant, or employee of any company in general had a right to private free speech as anything they said would reflect on their employer which seemed an extremely authoritarian attitude to me.

Indeed, if that is actually what he said (I haven't listened to it) that is extraordinarily authoritarian.

As most people are employees of some company or other, then that would imply that none of us, except the self-employed, have any right to free speech and should never voice an opinion about anything in public.

He's really gone down in my estimation if this is true. I thought he was one of the sane faces of the Tory Party. Obviously not.

Of course, if he was at all consistent, he would have fully supported Boris in 2019. But no, as a Tory grandee, he's way too important. One rule for one, one rule for another...

 

[adc82140]

This was so easily fixable by the BBC, but they are just digging themselves a deeper hole.

I could write their statement:

"Gary Lineker has expressed some views on his personal twitter account. Mr Lineker was writing in a personal capacity, and as a media outlet independent of the government, the BBC neither endorses nor condemns his view. Mr Lineker is a freelance sports presenter, and is not and has never been employed by BBC News & Current Affairs. The official Twitter feed for Match Of The Day is @motd."

It's that easy. They have let this get out of control. I thought W1A was satire, not a documentary.

 

[Fleetmaster]

This was so easily fixable by the BBC, but they are just digging themselves a deeper hole.

I could write their statement:

"Gary Lineker has expressed some views on his personal twitter account. Mr Lineker was writing in a personal capacity, and as a media outlet independent of the government, the BBC neither endorses nor condemns his view. Mr Lineker is a freelance sports presenter, and is not and has never been employed by BBC News & Current Affairs. The official Twitter feed for Match Of The Day is @motd."

It's that easy. They have let this get out of control. I thought W1A was satire, not a documentary.

Since this statement completely ignores (or worse, contemptuously dismisses) the cause of his suspension (ignoring and then presumably doubling down on his attitude that he is somehow exempt from the BBC policy that clearly states high profile sports presenters need to be mindful of the BBC's policy of neutrality in how they use social media, policy that he freely signed into his contract) and the secondary cause of the pushback (the offensiveness of democratically elected ministers of state being compared to murderous dictatorships in ways that even those who lived through those times have described as "going too far"), this would do the exact opposite of fixing the problem.

 

[dangie]

Many are saying that as Gary Lineker is ‘employed’ by the BBC he shouldn’t air his political views publicly. But how about Ian Hislop & Paul Merton on ‘Have I got News for You’? They constantly give their own views about politics & politicians. The programme couldn’t survive without them. They are surely employed by the BBC.

 

[Darandio]

Many are saying that as Gary Lineker is ‘employed’ by the BBC he shouldn’t air his political views publicly. But how about Ian Hislop & Paul Merton on ‘Have I got News for You’? They constantly give their own views about politics & politicians. The programme couldn’t survive without them. They are surely employed by the BBC.

No they aren't, BBC don't make the show.

 

[Gloster]

Since this statement completely ignores (or worse, contemptuously dismisses) the cause of his suspension (ignoring and then presumably doubling down on his attitude that he is somehow exempt from the BBC policy that clearly states high profile sports presenters need to be mindful of the BBC's policy of neutrality in how they use social media, policy that he freely signed into his contract) and the secondary cause of the pushback (the offensiveness of democratically elected ministers of state being compared to murderous dictatorships in ways that even those who lived through those times have described as "going too far"), this would do the exact opposite of fixing the problem.

Please advise us where you have evidence of the assertion that I have highlighted.

 

[dosxuk]

ignoring and then presumably doubling down on his attitude that he is somehow exempt from the BBC policy that clearly states high profile sports presenters need to be mindful of the BBC's policy of neutrality in how they use social media, policy that he freely signed into his contract

You might want to check up on the actual BBC rules on impartiality - here's a link - https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/guidelines - and separately, their editorial guidelines - https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/conflicts-of-interest/guidelines - in particular section 15.3.13

15.3.13 Where individuals identify themselves as being linked with the BBC, or are programme makers, editorial staff, reporters or presenters primarily associated with the BBC, their public expressions of opinion have the potential to compromise the BBC’s impartiality and to damage its reputation. This includes the use of social media and writing letters to the press. Opinions expressed on social media are put into the public domain, can be shared and are searchable.

The risk is greater where the public expressions of opinion overlap with the area of the individual’s work. The risk is lower where an individual is expressing views publicly on an unrelated area, for example, a sports or science presenter expressing views on politics or the arts.

(my bold)

The Director General has stated that the rules and guidelines, especially relating to freelance contributors are not clear enough, and may not be justifiable where those contributors are not involved with political or news coverage. It doesn't take much reading between the lines to realise that the provisions that the DG wants Lineker to abide by are not currently in his contract - indeed, if they were, I would have expected a far swifter response from both parties as soon as the contract breech was discovered.

the offensiveness of democratically elected ministers of state being compared to murderous dictatorships

I think you should also check up on what Lineker actually said, because not even the Tories are accusing him of comparing ministers to "murderous dictatorships". Sure, there's a lot of misrepresentation about what he did actually say, but I've not seen anyone go as far as you are implying.

 

[Fleetmaster]

To the people claiming Lineker hasn't broken any guidelines, take note....

What is the BBC’s social media policy and what does it mean for stars like Lineker?

The public service broadcaster’s guidelines are in the spotlight amid a row over a tweet by the presenter

www.theguardian.com

Not even The Guardian was able to make the case he is innocent, being forced to admit all the basic realities that debunk the myths being spread around....

1. Lineker categorically did Tweet something (describing migrant policy as "immeasurably cruel") that any reasonable person would agree is "taking a side" in a "political controversy" and "public policy matters", which is significant because.....

2. ...to any reasonable person, Lineker is categorically of a "profile" (role, pay, Twitter followers) sufficiently high that puts him under "additional responsibility" to "ensure their activity on social media platforms does not compromise the perception of or undermine the impartiality and reputation of the BBC" beyond that which applies to "anyone working for the BBC".

(D)ipso facto, Lineker has been caught bang to rights merely for how he used his social media in the capacity of a high profile but non-politcal representative of the BBC, even before the BBC's expensive lawyers sugar the pudding by introducing sufficient doubt in a reasonable person due to his 2022 involvement in editorial decisions like the Match Of The Day World Cup coverage which he fronted, veering squarely into the controversy of human rights in Qatar, as to whether he even is categorically not a news/current affairs/politics for the purposes of avoiding the perception that the BBC's editorial decisions are influenced by a lack of due impartiality, or by a programme like that where viewers won't be expecting political views, making it clear Lineker is both not a BBC political correspondent and he is a political Tweeter with strong views.

It is actually rather pathetic that the only wiggle room the Guardian was able to find, and which has been seen in this very thread, is this bizarre idea that either his actual contract negotiated opt-outs from these terms, or that he is otherwise not subject to them on what most reasonable people would view as a technicality (he was expressing his views on Twitter as a person, whereas he represents the BBC as Gary Lineker Talks Footy Ltd.).

If it gets out that Lineker's use of contract law is there for both tax and privileged speech reasons, anyone calling for Lineker to be Prime Minister, is either a complete and total mug, or a genius in political sattire.

 

[Ant1966]

To the people claiming Lineker hasn't broken any guidelines, take note....

What is the BBC’s social media policy and what does it mean for stars like Lineker?

The public service broadcaster’s guidelines are in the spotlight amid a row over a tweet by the presenter

www.theguardian.com

Not even The Guardian was able to make the case he is innocent, being forced to admit all the basic realities that debunk the myths being spread around....

1. Lineker categorically did Tweet something (describing migrant policy as "immeasurably cruel") that any reasonable person would agree is "taking a side" in a "political controversy" and "public policy matters", which is significant because.....

2. ...to any reasonable person, Lineker is categorically of a "profile" (role, pay, Twitter followers) sufficiently high that puts him under "additional responsibility" to "ensure their activity on social media platforms does not compromise the perception of or undermine the impartiality and reputation of the BBC" beyond that which applies to "anyone working for the BBC".

(D)ipso facto, Lineker has been caught bang to rights merely for how he used his social media in the capacity of a high profile but non-politcal representative of the BBC, even before the BBC's expensive lawyers sugar the pudding by introducing sufficient doubt in a reasonable person due to his 2022 involvement in editorial decisions like the Match Of The Day World Cup coverage which he fronted, veering squarely into the controversy of human rights in Qatar, as to whether he even is categorically not a news/current affairs/politics for the purposes of avoiding the perception that the BBC's editorial decisions are influenced by a lack of due impartiality, or by a programme like that where viewers won't be expecting political views, making it clear Lineker is both not a BBC political correspondent and he is a political Tweeter with strong views.

It is actually rather pathetic that the only wiggle room the Guardian was able to find, and which has been seen in this very thread, is this bizarre idea that either his actual contract negotiated opt-outs from these terms, or that he is otherwise not subject to them on what most reasonable people would view as a technicality (he was expressing his views on Twitter as a person, whereas he represents the BBC as Gary Lineker Talks Footy Ltd.).

If it gets out that Lineker's use of contract law is there for both tax and privileged speech reasons, anyone calling for Lineker to be Prime Minister, is either a complete and total mug, or a genius in political sattire.

"Hello Mick Lynch are you happy with yourself bringing the country and ordinary people down on their knees over Xmas. You don't fool me waiting for the employers to come to table. You love the publicity. Your members would like to earn what you get. Why don't you waive your salary" Dec 22
Lord Alan Sugar 5.2M Twitter followers. Current presenter of very well known BBC show (not news/current affairs related).

"This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the '30s, and I'm out of order?" Mar 23
Gary Lineker 8.8M Twitter followers. Current presenter of very well known BBC show (not news/current affairs related).

Please explain the difference?

 

[dosxuk]

due to his 2022 involvement in editorial decisions like the Match Of The Day World Cup coverage which he fronted, veering squarely into the controversy of human rights in Qatar

You keep bringing this up like it's some sort of proof that he talks politics. Unfortunately, it proves the opposite point to which you appear to rely on - in the case of Qatar, there was significant discussion, within and outside of the BBC, about how to discuss the very real concerns about Qatar's human rights standards - including how to reference this in the sporting coverage. Yes, Gary Lineker was involved in those discussions - this is not unusual in any way, lead presenters are often closely involved with editorial decisions, especially when it will be their mouth saying the words the producers want - but so were a great many other people in the BBC Sport and wider BBC management. Indeed, there were multiple articles written on the BBC website, both from the news and sport teams, correspondents, reporters, editors and managers, about how to approach the controversy and the balance that needed to be found - it was far from a Lineker crusade which got the subject brought up.

Lineker didn't surprise the entire team by going on a rant about human rights abuses when he was supposed to be talking football. He didn't line up an alternative running order that he somehow forced the rest of the presentational team to go along with, against the wishes of management (this would basically be impossible, as well as extremely obvious if he even attempted it). He was simply involved in the discussions about what the programme he fronts was going to cover, and then agreed with his bosses how much time would be set aside for it and the things they would discuss.

In other words - where there are political things to discuss on his programming - he doesn't just cannonball into it, he ensures that the production team and management are happy with the content to be discussed before he goes on air.

as to whether he even is categorically not a news/current affairs/politics for the purposes of avoiding the perception that the BBC's editorial decisions are influenced by a lack of due impartiality, or by a programme like that where viewers won't be expecting political views, making it clear Lineker is both not a BBC political correspondent and he is a political Tweeter with strong views.

And here you've completely lost me. I have no idea what you are trying to say or demonstrate, it's just word soup.

 

[Fleetmaster]

Pease explain the difference?

Only after you explain how it benefits Lineker.

If Sugar is in breach, so is Lineker.

If he is not in breach, what are you complaining about.

And as a bonus prize, please offer an opinion on who would be more likely to be able to carve out a contractual exception that allows a representative of the BBC in a non-political role to retain their political free speech, a Member of the Lords and former government czar whose political allegiance is well known, or an ex footballer whose allegiances are not?

 

[Intercity110]

Please explain the difference?

the papers screamed and shouted with this one, wheats they didn’t with sugar

 

[Fleetmaster]

In other words - where there are political things to discuss on his programming - he doesn't just cannonball into it, he ensures that the production team and management are happy with the content to be discussed before he goes on air.


And here you've completely lost me. I have no idea what you are trying to say or demonstrate, it's just word soup.The

I'll keep it simple then. Lineker is already guilty of bringing the BBC into disrepute for his use of social media in a way that high profile non-political representatives are barred from. He is bang to rights. Not even The Guardian is able to make the case. If he is stupid enough to take this to a court, a lawyer has enough proof from his 2022 involvement in editorial decisions regarding political content to make it even worse for him, by advancing the case that he is rightly considered to be, in some form, a representative of the BBC in the capacity of the news/current affairs/documentary realm, where the rules he has already clearly broken, are even stricter. All he has in his defence, apparently, is either a specific get out clause in his contract, or this idea that freelancers shouldn't be subject to the same rules as employees. Both are asburd arguments, for different but obvious reasons.

 

[dosxuk]

Lineker is already guilty of bringing the BBC into disrepute for his use of social media in a way that high profile non-political representatives are barred from.

Whether he has brought the BBC into disrepute is still open to discussion, although as your case depends on it, I'll let you go on that one. However, the latter point about other high-profile non-political representatives being barred from making similar comments is an obvious fallacy, as there are numerous clear examples of other high-profile, non-political representatives making similar and more extreme posts in their positions outside of the BBC (as was Lineker in this case - the comments were made on his social media, not as part of his work for the BBC).

He is bang to rights. Not even The Guardian is able to make the case.

The Guardian isn't even trying to make a case in that article. As it states as the bottom, none of the above means anything when it comes to freelancers, as their requirements under the rules are to be set out in their contracts - which none of us have seen.

If he is stupid enough to take this to a court, a lawyer has enough proof from his 2022 involvement in editorial decisions regarding political content to make it even worse for him, by advancing the case that he is rightly considered to be, in some form, a representative of the BBC in the capacity of the news/current affairs/documentary realm, where the rules he has already clearly broken, are even stricter.

As explained above, his involvement in those discussions in no way proves what you are trying to prove - instead it proves that where political and sporting matters collide, he did as required and discussed those matters with the editors and management before raising it on air. Senior presenters being involved in editorial discussions is nothing unusual, and I guarantee that hundreds of those types of discussion will be held across the BBC today, especially in the news department.

All he has in his defence, apparently, is either a specific get out clause in his contract

The Director General has pretty much admitted that there are no clauses in his contract that legally holds him to a higher standard than the normal guidelines, which contains a pretty big get out clause for sports presenters talking about politics in their personal social media. As above, if this was specifically prohibited in his contract you could expect all of the discussions to be about breech of contract rather than breech of guidelines - and the DG wouldn't be going on TV to say that the rules are insufficiently clear and made need adjusting.

or this idea that freelancers shouldn't be subject to the same rules as employees.

Which is completely normal, to the point that I doubt there are many freelancers working under the exact same conditions as employees anywhere in the country - and especially where a freelancer, we'll call him Gary, works for more than one employer - how do you deal with conflicting rules between the two employers? What if one gives out 30 days holiday, but the other only 28? What's that? It doesn't matter because the rules about holiday don't apply to freelancers - exactly.

 

[adc82140]

Since this statement completely ignores (or worse, contemptuously dismisses) the cause of his suspension (ignoring and then presumably doubling down on his attitude that he is somehow exempt from the BBC policy that clearly states high profile sports presenters need to be mindful of the BBC's policy of neutrality in how they use social media, policy that he freely signed into his contract) and the secondary cause of the pushback (the offensiveness of democratically elected ministers of state being compared to murderous dictatorships in ways that even those who lived through those times have described as "going too far"), this would do the exact opposite of fixing the problem.

Where does BBC policy state that sports presenters have to be neutral in their private social media use? It would be a different story if he was using the official motd twitter account for this, or was claiming to be speaking on behalf of the BBC, but he has done neither of those. He does not work in News & Current Affairs, so is not bound by their rules.

 

[Fleetmaster]

Whether he has brought the BBC into disrepute is still open to discussion, although as your case depends on it, I'll let you go on that one. However, the latter point about other high-profile non-political representatives being barred from making similar comments is an obvious fallacy, as there are numerous clear examples of other high-profile, non-political representatives making similar and more extreme posts in their positions outside of the BBC (as was Lineker in this case - the comments were made on his social media, not as part of his work for the BBC).



The Guardian isn't even trying to make a case in that article. As it states as the bottom, none of the above means anything when it comes to freelancers, as their requirements under the rules are to be set out in their contracts - which none of us have seen.



As explained above, his involvement in those discussions in no way proves what you are trying to prove - instead it proves that where political and sporting matters collide, he did as required and discussed those matters with the editors and management before raising it on air. Senior presenters being involved in editorial discussions is nothing unusual, and I guarantee that hundreds of those types of discussion will be held across the BBC today, especially in the news department.




The Director General has pretty much admitted that there are no clauses in his contract that legally holds him to a higher standard than the normal guidelines, which contains a pretty big get out clause for sports presenters talking about politics in their personal social media. As above, if this was specifically prohibited in his contract you could expect all of the discussions to be about breech of contract rather than breech of guidelines - and the DG is be going on TV to say that the rules are insufficiently clear and made need adjusting.



Which is completely normal, to the point that I doubt there are many freelancers working under the exact same conditions as employees anywhere in the country - and especially where a freelancer, we'll call him Gary, works for more than one employer - how do you deal with conflicting rules between the two employers? What if one gives out 30 days holiday, but the other only 28? What's that? It doesn't matter because the rules about holiday don't apply to freelancers - exactly.

The core issues are clear and don't justify this level of water muddying.

1. If Gary Lineker was a BBC staff member, has he broken the rules? See Guardian piece and refute my analysis with specifics

2. If Gary Lineker's status as a freelancer is the only thing that gets him off the book regarding 1., explain why that isn't an absolute outrage? Don't talk about holiday pay, address the reasons why those rules exist in the first place.

 

[adc82140]

The core issues are clear and don't justify this level of water muddying.

1. If Gary Lineker was a BBC staff member, has he broken the rules? See Guardian piece and refute my analysis with specifics

2. If Gary Lineker's status as a freelancer is the only thing that gets him off the book regarding 1., explain why that isn't an absolute outrage? Don't talk about holiday pay, address the reasons why those rules exist in the first place.

Were you outraged about Alan Sugar's comments regarding Mick Lynch referenced up thread?

 

[Howardh]

Just a question, I've seen sports people on "Question Time" in the pass, not long ago Seb Vettel (Formula 1) was on. If Lineker had been invited to be a panellist, maybe because there was a current discussion about funding women's football, building on school playing fields or holding the World Cup in Qatar, he'd be there to offer his point of view for/against the government etc. Then suppose they moved on to a question about the "boats"; and he offered an opinion as he did on twitter, which panellists are expected to do.

Would have there been all this fall-out?? If not, what's the difference??

 

[Fleetmaster]

Where does BBC policy state that sports presenters have to be neutral in their private social media use? It would be a different story if he was using the official motd twitter account for this, or was claiming to be speaking on behalf of the BBC, but he has done neither of those. He does not work in News & Current Affairs, so is not bound by their rules.

It's all explained in this post...

Any thoughts on Gary Lineker’s tweets?

Philip Hammonds interview was interesting, he said he didnt think the BBC was biased in either direction separating him from his colleagues attitude but then he said he didnt think any BBC employee, civil servant, or employee of any company in general had a right to private free speech as...

www.railforums.co.uk

If even The Guardian cannot prove Lineker hasn't broken BBC policy, I doubt random posters on a forum can do any better.

If they think they can, the logical starting point would be to prove the Guardian is wrong and they are right (e.g., The Guardian doesn't state that by not Tweeting from an official account he somehow voids the policy, they merely try to argue that there is a contractual clause which does, but since nobody can see his contract and Lineker hasn't said he has such a clause, it seems to be a case of clutching at straws at best, desperation at worst).

 

[adc82140]

It's all explained in this post...

Any thoughts on Gary Lineker’s tweets?

Philip Hammonds interview was interesting, he said he didnt think the BBC was biased in either direction separating him from his colleagues attitude but then he said he didnt think any BBC employee, civil servant, or employee of any company in general had a right to private free speech as...

www.railforums.co.uk

If even The Guardian cannot prove Lineker hasn't broken BBC policy, I doubt random posters on a forum can do any better.

If they think they can, the logical starting point would be to prove the Guardian is wrong and they are right (e.g., The Guardian doesn't state that by not Tweeting from an official account he somehow voids the policy, they merely try to argue that there is a contractual clause which does, but since nobody can see his contract and Lineker hasn't said he has such a clause, it seems to be a case of clutching at straws at best, desperation at worst).

You've just cited your own post.

The Director General has admitted there is no clear policy for non news staff or freelancers. I think he'd be the one to know.

 

[Howardh]

You've just cited your own post.

The Director General has admitted there is no clear policy for non news staff or freelancers. I think he'd be the one to know.

Strikes me a bit like if a Prime Minister didn't know or was confused by the laws he/she had made (!!).

Although to be fair I don't think the current BBC Director General actually has made these "rules"!!