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)

---

thomalex - thomalex - 10-03-2023

(10-03-2023, 11:05 PM)Will Wrote:  

---

https://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/1634272411251101703?s=46&t=jWc_YnyETW1Yfjb8gq7DQQ 


The can of worms has well and truly been opened.

Totally agree. The BBC have managed to fudge this for years but it’s now caught up on them in a big way. I’m fully with the idea if you are on the BBC then you have to be impartial, it’s publically funded at the end of the day. But it has to be a consistent rule for everyone, clearly defined.

---

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

(10-03-2023, 11:05 PM)XIII Wrote:  In the case of the likes of Lord Sugar or Mark Gatiss, The Apprentice is made by Fremantle and MGM TV so he's not actually employed by the BBC per se, Gatiss created Sherlock through Hartswood Films which again is an indie.

Is that distinction relevant enough to the general public though? They are all still major programmes made for the BBC. 

The BBC has nobody else to blame but itself for the mess it has made of this situation.

---

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

(10-03-2023, 10:57 PM)Adsales Wrote:  

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

That’s why I said he would “effectively be sacked for breach of contract”. In reality, as he is not an employee, the contract would be terminated due to breach. The overall impact of that is equivalent to a sacking

I am, as I said, assuming that such clauses would be in the contract. I am assuming this as they are standard for absolutely everything. When you are ending a contract because the other party is in breach, any time limit to ending it is usually void. Again, assuming it is drafted properly. I don’t know why you would assume Lineker has a crack team of top lawyers but the BBC doesn’t. I would think both parties do and the agreement is likely very complicated, but legally sound.

---

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

(10-03-2023, 10:57 PM)Kojak Wrote:  

(10-03-2023, 10:53 PM)Jeff Wrote:  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)?

The issue though is this isn't the first time Linekar expressing his political/personal opinions on Twitter has caused issues (whether real or perceived) for the BBC. If it was, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion because it would either be a kerfuffle (particularly in media outlets hostile to the BBC) or handled differently.

---

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

(10-03-2023, 11:05 PM)XIII Wrote:  In the case of the likes of Lord Sugar or Mark Gatiss, The Apprentice is made by Fremantle and MGM TV so he's not actually employed by the BBC per se, Gatiss created Sherlock through Hartswood Films which again is an indie.

That's not the point being made, but I expect you know that.

---

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

(10-03-2023, 11:09 PM)Jeff Wrote:  

(10-03-2023, 10:57 PM)Kojak Wrote:  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)?

The issue though is this isn't the first time Linekar expressing his political/personal opinions on Twitter has caused issues (whether real or perceived) for the BBC. If it was, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion because it would either be a kerfuffle (particularly in media outlets hostile to the BBC) or handled differently.

Do you not think, though, that these issues are deliberately blown up by... certain elements, who have a problem with the BBC anyway? I tend to think that if the BBC turned into GB News Mk II overnight, these people still wouldn't be satisfied, because many of them don't agree with the TV licence or the idea of a publicly funded broadcaster. Gary Lineker happens to have politics that these people don't share, so he is a very easy target for them.

---

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

(10-03-2023, 11:09 PM)interestednovice Wrote:  

(10-03-2023, 10:57 PM)Adsales Wrote:  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.

That’s why I said he would “effectively be sacked for breach of contract”. In reality, as he is not an employee, the contract would be terminated due to breach. The overall impact of that is equivalent to a sacking

I am, as I said, assuming that such clauses would be in the contract. I am assuming this as they are standard for absolutely everything. When you are ending a contract because the other party is in breach, any time limit to ending it is usually void. Again, assuming it is drafted properly. I don’t know why you would assume Lineker has a crack team of top lawyers but the BBC doesn’t. I would think both parties do and the agreement is likely very complicated, but legally sound.

The BBC has lost numerous high profile cases over the last 10 years or so. Cliff Richard? Age discrimination against Miriam O’Reilly? Samira Ahmed?

The simple reason for his contract likely not including social media restrictions is that he’s been presenting MOTD since for 20+ years. The BBC is often sloppy. Believe me, I know. I would not at all be surprised if the wording of his current contract is the same as his first save as to his fees.

---

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

It’s probably a fair point that issues get blown up, but I expect that really to go both ways.

If we have a Conservative government, people supporting Labour will claim the BBC has “government bias” and look to point out the bias. If we have a Labour government, of course those who are Conservative-supporting would be doing the same thing. Social media, in general, is “populated” largely by people who skew to the left. Large sections of the press, conversely, skew to the right. The BBC has to walk a tightrope with every sensitive issue. It’s partly why it can’t be seen to “let things go” if there is a clamour for action to be taken, and why an apology in this case probably wouldn’t even have worked as certain people would not have allowed this to be brushed under the carpet anyway.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Newshound47 - 10-03-2023

https://twitter.com/Lawton_Times/status/1634317347514118150?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet 

---

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

Some background on how the day unfolded for BBC Sport. Everyone was planning to continue the programme as normal with Lineker in the afternoon, until those above BBC Sport got involved. By 18:30 there was a struggle to get anyone to be made available for the show leading to the 21:30 announcement of a show sans host and pundits.

https://twitter.com/MiguelDelaney/status/1634290125667463169?s=20 


I'm actually quite looking forward to a show without any of the studio coverage. It will obviously be a cheaper format to continue with long term so maybe food for thought for execs when the next round of budget cuts come round.

---