Quote from: flamingpig0 on 17 March 2023, 07:51:21 AMYou don't seem to apply that argument to Alan Sugar, Andrew Neal or Clarkson.

Quote from: John Cook on 17 March 2023, 09:06:49 AMWhy should I? What have they got to do with Lineker?  This thread is not about them.  Strawman alert I think:-/

Quote from: Ben Waterhouse on 17 March 2023, 09:21:01 AMWhataboutery deflection of the first order...

I think the point here is that if we're wanting the BBC to tighten up its guidelines and stop Gary Lineker from commenting on political issues then you have to carry that same rule out to all other BBC employees/contractors as well.

Alan Sugar spent a whole election campaign telling people not to vote for Labour, are the BBC going to muzzle a Lord (!) just as a new series of the Apprentice is about to start?  Andrew Neil doesn't work there anymore but spent most of the last few years of his time at the BBC posting forthright political opinions on Twitter, would they have had the strength to shut him down?

There's a plethora of people associated with the BBC who regularly post personal opinion on their own social media channels and that's where the problem lies for me.  I think there are certain voices that the BBC (and government) are happy to comment on politics, so they can't single out Lineker without it looking like an attempt to silence left-wing commentary.

This whole furore has kicked off over one person with one Tweet and the BBC over-reacted, in my view because of coercion from the top.  But they didn't anticipate the response to their actions and they've backed themselves into a corner now.

Quote"Lineker and his fellow pundits seem to be a special case, and that cannot be a good thing."


Who are you comparing them to?

Nobody.  Just the way the BBC has handled the matter and, just to set your mind at rest, I think all BBC employees and contractors, and everybody else, for that matter, who has a contract with any other entity whatsoever, anywhere, should abide by the terms of their respective contracts, whatever those terms might be, or do the other thing.
But, I reiterate, this thread was about Lineker, and his posts on Twitter, not the behaviour of any other BBC employees or contractors. 

Quote from: Ben Waterhouse on 17 March 2023, 09:21:01 AMWhataboutery deflection of the first order...

It certainly is, in the context of this thread.

Quote from: Leon on 17 March 2023, 04:52:55 PMI think the point here is that if we're wanting the BBC to tighten up its guidelines and stop Gary Lineker from commenting on political issues then you have to carry that same rule out to all other BBC employees/contractors as well....

A fair point, Leon, but nowhere have I suggested that the BBC guidelines shouldn't apply to every BBC employee.  I've tried to confine myself to the subject of the thread and avoid red herrings. 

Quote from: Gwydion on 16 March 2023, 11:21:07 AMAnd I'm not sure you are right about the automatic actions of football clubs - was Marcus Rashford fined for criticising the Government over school meals provision?

Rashford wasn't sanctioned because his employers didn't see it as a matter that brought them into disrepute - quite the opposite. But if he'd made a blatantly racist remark or exposed himself in a nightclub, his employers might well have fined or sanctioned him and justifiably so.

The BBC has a statutory duty of impartiality. Lineker knew that. He signed a contract that stated that he would abide by that principle. He broke that contract. Regardless of whether you/me/anybody thinks he is right in what he said, the basic principle of law is that he is in breach of his contract and the BBC can (if it choses to do so) impose a sanction on him. The fact that the BBC totally ballsed it all up, just goes to show that Lineker probably knew he was in a strong position to be able to 'get away with it'.

There are cases - like the Clive Pontin Official Secret Act breach - where a court ruled that it was the 'Public Interest' defense that overruled even the Official Secrets Act - but I'd hardly think that Lineker's Tweat falls into that category.
It's in many ways just like the behavior of Isabel Oakeshott handing over Hancock's WhatsApp messages to the Telegraph. Another breach of contract & confidence, just because she knew she'd be able to get away with it (& would get paid handsomely in the process). And I am not defending Hancock - who was an idiot to trust Oakeshott - who had 'previous' for this sort of unscrupulous behavior, but are Hancock's WhatsApp messages really so 'insightful' as to justify a 'Public Interest' defense - personally I think not.

It all boils down to the fact that Lineker took advantage of the position the BBC currently (& IMHO unjustly) finds itself in, that it is under intense scrutiny from the Conservative Party in particular, that is under pressure from the other media channels to scrap the BBC and the license fee. I am a huge supporter of the BBC personally. It generally provides good/great programming and its News is also generally reliable. But I'd not want to be running it as a manager, not with the biased external pressures it is being put under (unnecessarily) IMHO.

At £13.25 per month the BBC license fee is also actually pretty good value - compared to the commercial options available .

Quote from: John Cook on 17 March 2023, 05:34:32 PMA fair point, Leon, but nowhere have I suggested that the BBC guidelines shouldn't apply to every BBC employee.  I've tried to confine myself to the subject of the thread and avoid red herrings. 

I totally get that but I think the wider impact has to be the overall point of the discussion.  The current focus is on Lineker but the BBC can't start imposing different rules against him when there are many others who have done and still do the same thing. 

Quote from: Big Insect on 17 March 2023, 09:33:03 PMThe BBC has a statutory duty of impartiality. Lineker knew that. He signed a contract that stated that he would abide by that principle. He broke that contract. Regardless of whether you/me/anybody thinks he is right in what he said, the basic principle of law is that he is in breach of his contract and the BBC can (if it choses to do so) impose a sanction on him.

Are the contract details available anywhere online for us to have a look at?  I've not seen anyone from the BBC state that he's breached a contract, only that his Tweet falls into this grey area of the impartiality rules, so there doesn't seem to be any defined legal issue here.  The impartiality section of their editorial guidelines specifically states that any political opinion restrictions only apply to their news and politics teams.

Quote from: John Cook on 17 March 2023, 05:12:57 PMNobody. 

 "Lineker and his fellow pundits seem to be a special case"

Linker can only be a special case though comparison with others within his category.

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 17 March 2023, 11:36:17 PM"Lineker and his fellow pundits seem to be a special case"

Linker can only be a special case though comparison with others within his category.

I disagree. 

Quote from: Leon on 17 March 2023, 10:53:38 PMI totally get that but I think the wider impact has to be the overall point of the discussion.  The current focus is on Lineker but the BBC can't start imposing different rules against him when there are many others who have done and still do the same thing. 

Are the contract details available anywhere online for us to have a look at?  I've not seen anyone from the BBC state that he's breached a contract, only that his Tweet falls into this grey area of the impartiality rules, so there doesn't seem to be any defined legal issue here.  The impartiality section of their editorial guidelines specifically states that any political opinion restrictions only apply to their news and politics teams.

OK, that wasn't how I saw it.  I took the view that it was about Lineker, his tweets and Match of the Day.  Other than the Clarkson, who was sacked as I remember, I'm not familiar with other alleged transgressors so I can't comment.  Lineker is a serial offender and if the BBC was serious they should have sacked him, and been done with it.  Now the BBC just looks stupid.  But I'm in danger of repeating myself.

The BBC Guidelines are on-line but I doubt Lineker's contract is.

.

All this reminds me that back in the eighties I decided to abandon politics and spend a more productive life with wargaming, sci-fi B movies and "alternative" music. I don't think I made the wrong choice.

Quote from: Big Insect on 17 March 2023, 09:33:03 PMAt £13.25 per month the BBC license fee is also actually pretty good value - compared to the commercial options available .

Really? Interested in what you watch. Just looked at today's BBC1 schedule: News, cooking, football, news, rugby, antiques, football, news, football, brainless quiz show, Casualty (series 37), Not Going Out (series 10), news, Football, scary film.

If you're not into sport, there's not a lot of innovative, interesting programming there.

What about BBC2 ... but let's take Monday to avoid the weekend: tourism, antiques, tourism, tourism, news, politics, game shows, cooking, cooking, houses, antiques, Richard Osman's House of Games, cooking whilst touring, book club, real life, Mastermind, University Challenge, real life, comedy-ish, news, history/travel (part 1 of 2), tourism, Dragons' Den (series 20), can't be bothered.

Again, thin fare for me. In two days there is about 1 hour of programming I am even mildly interested in.

The BBC's mission is defined by​ ​Royal Charter​: "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which ​inform, educate ​and ​entertain​."

Leaving aside impartial, what is high-quality is not distinctive, and what is distinctive is not high quality. I gave up my licence a few years ago because I did not feel the BBC offered me much for my £13.25.

What has this to do with Lineker? I go back to my original point and suggest he be removed and replaced with  a cheaper alternative. The money could be better used to uphold the mission.

 

Quote from: Leon on 17 March 2023, 10:53:38 PMAre the contract details available anywhere online for us to have a look at?  I've not seen anyone from the BBC state that he's breached a contract, only that his Tweet falls into this grey area of the impartiality rules, so there doesn't seem to be any defined legal issue here.  The impartiality section of their editorial guidelines specifically states that any political opinion restrictions only apply to their news and politics teams.

That I don't know Leon - so a fair point - it is raised in the wider media that he was not supposed to make impartial comments but that might all be media hype & speculation of course 

Quote from: fsn on 18 March 2023, 09:53:37 AMReally? Interested in what you watch. Just looked at today's BBC1 schedule: News, cooking, football, news, rugby, antiques, football, news, football, brainless quiz show, Casualty (series 37), Not Going Out (series 10), news, Football, scary film.

If you're not into sport, there's not a lot of innovative, interesting programming there.

What about BBC2 ... but let's take Monday to avoid the weekend: tourism, antiques, tourism, tourism, news, politics, game shows, cooking, cooking, houses, antiques, Richard Osman's House of Games, cooking whilst touring, book club, real life, Mastermind, University Challenge, real life, comedy-ish, news, history/travel (part 1 of 2), tourism, Dragons' Den (series 20), can't be bothered.

Again, thin fare for me. In two days there is about 1 hour of programming I am even mildly interested in.

The BBC's mission is defined by​ ​Royal Charter​: "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which ​inform, educate ​and ​entertain​."

Leaving aside impartial, what is high-quality is not distinctive, and what is distinctive is not high quality. I gave up my licence a few years ago because I did not feel the BBC offered me much for my £13.25.

What has this to do with Lineker? I go back to my original point and suggest he be removed and replaced with  a cheaper alternative. The money could be better used to uphold the mission.
 

I am very selective about what I watch (mainly News, Current Affairs, Wildlife or History - the occasional good bit of police/crime drama) and TBF what I have seen of the likes of Sky or even Netflix or Amazon (both of which I subscribe to) or Disney is a plethora of films (many old or with Amazon - very much 'B' lists) and the very occasional good entertainment series.

And of course today (a Saturday) is pretty much all about Sport on any and all channels - as that is what caters for the masses! I am not a sports fan.

I just think we (as a society) need to be really careful not to throw the baby out with the bath-water regarding the BBC. Look at the total mess that privatization has made of our utilities, trains and the post-office.

The problem with the BBC is that it  combines hard right pro-gov't news and current affairs with earnest inept overly woke  drama. Almost as if it is calculated to have something to alienate everybody.

QuoteI just think we (as a society) need to be really careful not to throw the baby out with the bath-water regarding the BBC. Look at the total mess that privatization has made of our utilities, trains and the post-office.

I would not describe it as a total mess.  That there is room for improvement is undoubtedly the case but it has also delivered some very helpful reforms.

Quote from: Leon on 17 March 2023, 04:52:55 PMAlan Sugar spent a whole election campaign telling people not to vote for Labour, are the BBC going to muzzle a Lord (!) just as a new series of the Apprentice is about to start?  Andrew Neil doesn't work there anymore but spent most of the last few years of his time at the BBC posting forthright political opinions on Twitter, would they have had the strength to shut him down?

Is Lord Sugar an employee of the BBC?  The BBC can decline to buy programmes from producers if they feel it inappropriate.

Quote from: hammurabi70 on 19 March 2023, 01:04:48 AMIs Lord Sugar an employee of the BBC?  The BBC can decline to buy programmes from producers if they feel it inappropriate.

He's not an employee, The Apprentice is produced by a separate company and bought by the BBC as far as I know.  Gary Lineker isn't a BBC employee either, he's a freelance broadcaster so is hired/paid for his services through his own production company I believe.  It's similar positions but Lineker is contracted directly so there's an argument that he should be held to a different standard.  It's a similar case with a lot of their presenters, Clarkson was always paid through his own company when he was doing Top Gear.

It has been suggested that David Baddiel could take over MotD but do it as Ian Wright

Sugar is also a member of the House of Lords and has been since 2009, initially a Labour peer but crossbench since 2017 when he left the party.  I don't see how somebody who is a member of Parliament could be stopped from making political statements.  It is, after all, part of the job is it not? 

Quote from: John Cook on 19 March 2023, 02:22:28 AMSugar is also a member of the House of Lords and has been since 2009, initially a Labour peer but crossbench since 2017 when he left the party.  I don't see how somebody who is a member of Parliament could be stopped from making political statements.  It is, after all, part of the job is it not?

Perhaps he could resign from his BBC job, as it is clearly incompatible with his role as a political figure?

Just an idea