The BBC

[The Baron]

I am sitting on the fence on this one as Lineker has form with previous tweets and the BBC have been so inconsistent before with other similar issues.
But this comment on Chippy's No 57 post "David said Lineker's opinions came from "a very privileged position" and said he believed he was "out of touch" with the public." does echo the thoughts in my local area where it is a exact reverse of the general thoughts by other celebs and this forum.
The locals that have discussed and commented on the local Facebook page are in the region of 80% for Lineker to be got rid of.
Only reporting the local feelings- notably not all the 80% commented directly on the immigration issue but some thought it is easy when you do not have to worry about your job and money to be vociferous on a cause you believe in and that many said they dare not put things on social media as it is not allowed by their employers or may be deemed not a good move
Do not shoot the messenger as I am still on the fence on this one and just as interested in the way it will be resolved as other members

 

[Tanglefoot]

There was already tension between the beeb and Gary Linekar on account of an ongoing tax investigation set to cost him £5 million if he loses . Though from expert opinion he has a strong case, Adrian Chile's and Lorraine Kelly won similar cases - Eamon Holmes not so lucky.
The BBC has insisted on presenters being self employed i.e no permanent contract. HMRC sees it as avoiding tax
liability, usually in these cases it's the employers who are held to account.
It will costing a tidy sum in legal fees all round, whatever the outcome.
When they decided to get rid of direct contracts for the ability to employ and dispense with employees at will, they lost the right to interfere with whatever Gary et all want to talk about in their own time.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

When they decided to get rid of direct contracts for the ability to employ and dispense with employees at will, they lost the right to interfere with whatever Gary et all want to talk about in their own time.

Exactly.

 

[TonyT]

It's kind of a shame that this has become a distraction from the tories disgusting, unworkable policy on migrants.

Kudos to Lineker for speaking out.

I think that the immigration policy itself is a smokescreen for all their other woes. If they can get the mouth breathers to focus on that, they may forget about all the sleaze and corruption, the fact that the energy companies are making record profits whilst some folk can’t afford to heat their homes, Johnson’s lies and nepotism and so on. I’m going down the pub now but you get the gist.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I think that the immigration policy itself is a smokescreen

It is, they are relying on this being halted then they can appease those in the party who say they are not doing enough by saying we tried but they wouldn't let us introduce the bill.

Rishi Sunak has promised to end the small boats once and for all, by introducing the illegal immigration bill. Critics including former Tory ministers have claimed it is doomed to be halted by challenges in the European court of human rights and will be used as an issue to attack Labour in a general election campaign.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/07/what-does-the-uk-governments-migration-bill-propose

 

[Chippy_Tea]

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Watch video below -

 

[dad_of_jon]

When they decided to get rid of direct contracts for the ability to employ and dispense with employees at will, they lost the right to interfere with whatever Gary et all want to talk about in their own time.

When I worked as a contractor at a government agency (I can't say which one) I was still bound to adhere to the same conditions as their employees with regards to social media. If I did not agree to this I wouldn't have been employed. why antagonize your employer (directly or indirectly)? Normally if you bite the hand that feeds you , you're out of a job there in short order.

If I told you that the agency I was working at was useless then technically I could be breaking the official secrets act

 

[Chippy_Tea]

) I was still bound to adhere to the same conditions as their employees with regards to social media

we don't know what his contracr says about social media and the question has been asked a few times today if he broke his contract why haven't they given him the boot?

 

[Leon103]

When I worked as a contractor at a government agency (I can't say which one) I was still bound to adhere to the same conditions as their employees with regards to social media. If I did not agree to this I wouldn't have been employed. why antagonize your employer (directly or indirectly)? Normally if you bite the hand that feeds you , you're out of a job there in short order.

If I told you that the agency I was working at was useless then technically I could be breaking the official secrets act

Same here. Think BBC will come out of those well. Lineker will either back down with his tail between his legs or bbc will get rid of him and his excessive wage, they will show they are sticking to the conditions set out. Either way get rid of those that failed to turn up for work over the week and get in people who want to work. If they are not happy with the conditions then they can go and cover football at another broadcaster

 

[pilgrimhudd]

When I worked as a contractor at a government agency (I can't say which one) I was still bound to adhere to the same conditions as their employees with regards to social media. If I did not agree to this I wouldn't have been employed. why antagonize your employer (directly or indirectly)? Normally if you bite the hand that feeds you , you're out of a job there in short order.

If I told you that the agency I was working at was useless then technically I could be breaking the official secrets act

There's a couple of pictures doing the rounds of the beeb replying to complaints about tweets from Chris Packham and Andrew Neil, both excused by the fact that there twitter accounts were their own views.

 

[JockyBrewer]

Lineker hasn’t broken his contract or BBC guidelines in voicing his own opinion.

I don’t think it was a well founded argument - the moment you need to invoke nazis/hitler you’ve lost the argument.

But it’s his right to say it.

Ultimately though the government will be rubbing its hands that everyone is talking about this rather that’s everything else that actually matters.

 

[pilgrimhudd]

I don’t think it was a well founded argument - the moment you need to invoke nazis/hitler you’ve lost the argument.

True, that kind of talk is best left to the Johnson's and Rees-Moggs of this world.

 

[Scrattajack]

The fact remains that Lineker is perfectly entitled to express a personal view on a personal social media channel because it doesn't affect in any way his terms of employment.

The BBC has scored an own-goal because, rather than Lineker, it has shown itself to lack impartiality by giving in to political pressure.

 

[allotment_fox]

Just posting as an update and long suffering Leicester City season ticket holder. I have been at the Leicester / Chelsea game to day saw Gary Lineker there in the stand when his face was shown on the big screen in a crowd shot the supporters stud up clapped & sang his name

 

[Northern_Brewer]

When I worked as a contractor at a government agency (I can't say which one) I was still bound to adhere to the same conditions as their employees with regards to social media. If I did not agree to this I wouldn't have been employed. why antagonize your employer (directly or indirectly)? Normally if you bite the hand that feeds you , you're out of a job there in short order.

But the BBC has different conditions. They have clear guidelines for news staff - along the lines that you describe - and different conditions for entertainment, sport etc staff which explicitly allow them to comment on areas outside their role with the BBC. And that rather suits the BBC as it means they can employ a whole load of people who moonlight in other fields, and they have lots of people in entertainment/sport who have made "right-wing" comments without being censured. So the story is not about what Lineker said - which was true - but the fact that the BBC are trying to shut down someone from one side of a debate but not others from the other side. That doesn't sound very impartial, from an organisation that is supposedly committed to impartiality.

They literally have George Orwell's quote carved into their building :
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people things they do not want to hear.”

Are you on the side of liberty or not?

 

[samale]

But the BBC has different conditions. They have clear guidelines for news staff - along the lines that you describe - and different conditions for entertainment, sport etc staff which explicitly allow them to comment on areas outside their role with the BBC. And that rather suits the BBC as it means they can employ a whole load of people who moonlight in other fields, and they have lots of people in entertainment/sport who have made "right-wing" comments without being censured. So the story is not about what Lineker said - which was true - but the fact that the BBC are trying to shut down someone from one side of a debate but not others from the other side. That doesn't sound very impartial, from an organisation that is supposedly committed to impartiality.

They literally have George Orwell's quote carved into their building :
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people things they do not want to hear.”

Are you on the side of liberty or not?

Perfectly worded

 

[Scrattajack]

But the BBC has different conditions. They have clear guidelines for news staff - along the lines that you describe - and different conditions for entertainment, sport etc staff which explicitly allow them to comment on areas outside their role with the BBC. And that rather suits the BBC as it means they can employ a whole load of people who moonlight in other fields, and they have lots of people in entertainment/sport who have made "right-wing" comments without being censured. So the story is not about what Lineker said - which was true - but the fact that the BBC are trying to shut down someone from one side of a debate but not others from the other side. That doesn't sound very impartial, from an organisation that is supposedly committed to impartiality.

They literally have George Orwell's quote carved into their building :
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people things they do not want to hear.”

Are you on the side of liberty or not?

That's a far more eloquent way of expressing my views than I'm capable of. Spot on!

 

[Crappyfish]

They seem to talking more about should he have said it than what he said.Does this mean they agree?

 

[MashBag]

This is getting waaay past anything to do with "the tweet" and more about the bosses not being on the ball