Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Printable Version

+- Pres Café (https://pres.cafe)
+-- Forum: Pres Café TV and Radio Forums (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: News and Sport Presentation (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy (/showthread.php?tid=381)

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - harshy - 10-03-2023

Yeah Lineker is not worried he will get played millions elsewhere for a rival broadcaster maybe even premier league productions ?

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Kojak - 10-03-2023

Our friends Jon and Emily sticking the boot in:

https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1634284641690570778 

https://twitter.com/maitlis/status/1634298674732752897 

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - sjhoward - 10-03-2023

Claiming on one hand that the presenter’s role is so core to the programme that Lineker deserves to be the BBC’s biggest paid star while also helpfully demonstrating that the programme can go ahead without any presenter is quite the, erm, own goal. (Boom boom)

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Newsroom - 10-03-2023

(10-03-2023, 10:46 PM)Kojak Wrote:  Our friends Jon and Emily sticking the boot in:

https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1634284641690570778 

https://twitter.com/maitlis/status/1634298674732752897 

I'm clutching my own pearls now dear.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Jeff - 10-03-2023

(10-03-2023, 09:35 PM)Lester Wrote:  The rule about impartiality on social media is completely right for people that work on BBC News but a guy that presents a football analysis show who's not even directly employed by them? Just seems bizarre to me. Massive misstep. I'm pro BBC but am puzzled about their actions here. This clearly comes from the top and THEIR political allegiances aren't exactly impartial.

Part of the issue (and as evident by the discussion in this thread, there are a lot of layers to this) is for a person in the position Linekar is in (i.e., one of the BBC's highest profile presenters who hosts their flagship sports program), he has arguably sailed too close to the wind generally when it comes to toeing the very murky line between him expressing his political/personal views and the impact him expressing said views would have (rightly or wrongly) on how people perceive a publically-funded media corporation. Yes, Linekar isn't bound by the same strict impartiality rules those who work for BBC News are (and the BBC's suggestion today that he seemingly is is in itself bizarre). However, that doesn't mean though that him (over a long period of time) expressing political views in a way whereby it has a wider impact on how some people perceive a media corporation they legally have to pay a fee to access isn't an issue for said corporation.

Has the BBC handled this incident well - hell no. In typical BBC navel-gazing fashion, they've dragged out an issue that could have been dealt with within 24 - 36 hours into a multi-day story whereby they would be criticized no matter what they ultimately did. Not to mention their alleged 'solution' to the story (i.e., asking Linekar to effectively apologise for what he said) poured petrol to the metaphorical fire when they could have handled this in a much better way (e.g., sitting down with Linekar for a discussion about their concerns with his tweet). However, a lot of the reaction today has been over-the-top at best and hysterical hyperbole at worst.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - London Lite - 10-03-2023

What Gary has done is a public service, exposing the continuation of the W1A management style along with the issues of how close senior management are to the Government all through one tweet. If this doesn't change the culture of the BBC, then nothing will.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - lhx1985 - 10-03-2023

(10-03-2023, 10:32 PM)XIII Wrote:  

(10-03-2023, 10:23 PM)Kojak Wrote:  I'm starting to think at least one of Sharp and Davie (hopefully both!) will be gone by Monday.

Why would Davie resign? Nobody seems to have given a reason why he should or will resign.

Same reason they all go for in the end. To limit the reputational damage to the corporation.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - DeMarkay - 10-03-2023

So a quick round up of what I’ve seen on here and Twitter… the BBC, Tim Davie and Richard Sharp have f****d themselves in the a**e.

Am I right?

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Kojak - 10-03-2023

(10-03-2023, 10:53 PM)Jeff Wrote:  

(10-03-2023, 09:35 PM)Lester Wrote:  The rule about impartiality on social media is completely right for people that work on BBC News but a guy that presents a football analysis show who's not even directly employed by them? Just seems bizarre to me. Massive misstep. I'm pro BBC but am puzzled about their actions here. This clearly comes from the top and THEIR political allegiances aren't exactly impartial.

Part of the issue (and as evident by the discussion in this thread, there are a lot of layers to this) is for a person in the position Linekar is in (i.e., one of the BBC's highest profile presenters who hosts their flagship sports program), he has arguably sailed too close to the wind generally when it comes to toeing the very murky line between him expressing his political/personal views and the impact him expressing said views would have (rightly or wrongly) on how people perceive a publically-funded media corporation. Yes, Linekar isn't bound by the same strict impartiality rules those who work for BBC News are (and the BBC's suggestion today that he seemingly is is in itself bizarre). However, that doesn't mean though that him (over a long period of time) expressing political views in a way whereby it has a wider impact on how some people perceive a media corporation they legally have to pay a fee to access isn't an issue for said corporation.

Has the BBC handled this incident well - hell no. In typical BBC navel-gazing fashion, they've dragged out an issue that could have been dealt with within 24 - 36 hours into a multi-day story whereby they would be criticized no matter what they ultimately did. Not to mention their alleged 'solution' to the story (i.e., asking Linekar to effectively apologise for what he said) poured petrol to the metaphorical fire when they could have handled this in a much better way (e.g., sitting down with Linekar for a discussion about their concerns with his tweet). However, a lot of the reaction today has been over-the-top at best and hysterical hyperbole at worst.

I think the problem with that argument is that you could apply it to literally anyone who has ever appeared on the BBC. What next - is Mark Gatiss going to be banned because he once said he was 'ashamed to be English'? If so then bye bye Sherlock. What about Alan Sugar? He once compared Jeremy Corbyn to Adolf Hitler! Is he going to be removed from The Apprentice? I think not. And how did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb when he sounds off about politics on Twitter left, right and centre (but mostly right)?

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Adsales - 10-03-2023

(10-03-2023, 10:32 PM)interestednovice Wrote:  

(10-03-2023, 10:21 PM)Adsales Wrote:  So it seems pretty clear that Gary’s contract doesn’t limit social media use or restrict it any way. That means he’s not bound by anything the BBC says about it.

So the standoff is clearly about them wishing to have him sign an addendum to cover social media and he’s refusing to do so and rightly so.

What no doubt complicates matters is that the agreement is likely between the BBC and his limited company which means the BBC has no influence on him full stop. He is simply the “individual” provided by his company to provide services to the BBC.

It’s most likely a bit more complicated than that. At a guess, there will be general legalese in the contract about not impugning the reputation of the BBC and so on, even if the full social media rules were not actually written in. Legally, the BBC HR people will probably be arguing that such language “implies into the contract” the full terms on public statements and social media use and so on. Obviously, conversely, Gary’s side will be arguing that he never thought that when he signed the contract - and despite occasional criticism, the BBC have never seriously rebuked his tweets before so there wasn’t much precedent for this.

It’s actually quite a complex legal debate. If the BBC side win the debate, he can effectively be sacked for breach of contract; if they don’t they have a problem on their hands as they have a “valid contract” that the BBC themselves are now no longer happy with.

I’m sure, at a minimum, the contract will guarantee that it is Lineker himself who appears though - otherwise literally anybody off the street, employed by his company, could appear in his place. That would never have got past the BBC lawyers at drafting stage.

He can’t be sacked. He’s not an employee. He’s the individual named to present in the services agreement between his company and the BBC. 
HR doesn’t factor in this at all. It’s a commercial contract.

The substitution clause will allow his company to provide a suitable alternative individual and the Beeb will have the right to refuse.

Assuming he and his lawyers know how to do business the termination period for the agreement will be at least a year.

Add to that, the BBC is likely to have given evidence in the ongoing IR35 court case between his company and HMRC and by doing that they would have made clear that he is autonomous and only be bound by internal policies whilst providing his services - i.e. whilst he is on air.

---