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 - Stooky Bill - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 04:47 PM)Stuart Wrote:  Getting back to the issue of Pres, I see MOTD is still listed for this evening on the EPG, so perhaps they will just carry a PL produced programme.

If they don't have the rights to the world commentary then I doubt they'll have rights to any generic Premier League programming. 

More likely that it's not been confirmed that it's not happening - even though it won't be - and so a replacement hasn't been made public either.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - matthieu1221 - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 05:02 PM)Stockland Hillman Wrote:  

(11-03-2023, 04:41 PM)Adsales Wrote:  That is all incorrect I’m afraid. A freelancer, i.e. a person who provides services to a broadcaster, be that as a sole trader or via a limited company, can only ever be under the control of the client whilst providing those services. In this case while on air or providing other services for which he is being paid.

Anything else by default pushes the freelancer into IR-35, which the BBC in Lineker’s case has argued he isn’t. 

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

Wrong, I'm afraid in every respect 

Companies and suppliers usually have contracts which cover all issues of conduct where the conduct may affect the position or reputation of the contracting party. 

It's a basic tenet of business,  used widely where outsourcing or franchising takes place to protect the master organisations reputation.  They also cover post engagement behavior

In law it's actually easier to control a contractor than a staffer

This then goes back to the social media rules.

In which:
- The BBC states that Lineker needs to agree to social media rules before coming back on air, hinting that there are currently none he has to comply with
- Or, even if we believe he still needs to follow the general guidelines by default, it is very difficult to see how Lineker could have infringed upon the general BBC social media guidelines, as @LDN explained earlier

We don't know the content of the actual contract but from what the BBC has been hinting it's likely the first option, and even failing that, the second point would apply.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Adsales - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 05:02 PM)Stockland Hillman Wrote:  

(11-03-2023, 04:41 PM)Adsales Wrote:  That is all incorrect I’m afraid. A freelancer, i.e. a person who provides services to a broadcaster, be that as a sole trader or via a limited company, can only ever be under the control of the client whilst providing those services. In this case while on air or providing other services for which he is being paid.

Anything else by default pushes the freelancer into IR-35, which the BBC in Lineker’s case has argued he isn’t. 

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

Wrong, I'm afraid in every respect 

Companies and suppliers usually have contracts which cover all issues of conduct where the conduct may affect the position or reputation of the contracting party. 

It's a basic tenet of business,  used widely where outsourcing or franchising takes place to protect the master organisations reputation.  They also cover post engagement behavior

In law it's actually easier to control a contractor than a staffer

Wrong, for the simple reason that you’re confusing contractual provisions on reputational damage with day-to-day control. The former doesn’t touch IR-35. The second very much.

The BBC argues he breached impartiality rules. He is, as long as he is not on air or making comments on behalf of the BBC, not subject to those rules. Just as Andrew Neill and Chris Packham were/are not.

But I’ll leave that there as it would derail the thread.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Omnipresent - 11-03-2023

I wonder if we’ll get a big breaking news announcement this Saturday night, a la George Entwistle resigning in the middle of a Rylan performance on The X Factor.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - TMD_24 - 11-03-2023

Just a 20 min edition of Match Of The Day tonight with no commentary!

https://twitter.com/Lawton_Times/status/1634589594950807553?s=20 
https://twitter.com/Lawton_Times/status/1634582189256966144?s=20 

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Stockland Hillman - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 05:08 PM)matthieu1221 Wrote:  

(11-03-2023, 05:02 PM)Stockland Hillman Wrote:  Wrong, I'm afraid in every respect 

Companies and suppliers usually have contracts which cover all issues of conduct where the conduct may affect the position or reputation of the contracting party. 

It's a basic tenet of business,  used widely where outsourcing or franchising takes place to protect the master organisations reputation.  They also cover post engagement behavior

In law it's actually easier to control a contractor than a staffer

This then goes back to the social media rules.

In which:
- The BBC states that Lineker needs to agree to social media rules before coming back on air, hinting that there are currently none he has to comply with
- Or, even if we believe he still needs to follow the general guidelines by default, it is very difficult to see how Lineker could have infringed upon the general BBC social media guidelines, as @LDN explained earlier

We don't know the content of the actual contract but from what the BBC has been hinting it's likely the first option, and even failing that, the second point would apply.

Indeed that looks the situation 

The BBC had previously said that Lineker is obligated.  If that's not in his contract,  that's a huge issue for them - they mislead lots of people - and GL is within his rights to say whatever

If it's included in GL contract, then the BBC should have been clearer he's breached it and taken action accordingly - termination.

"Negotiations" with GL and his team look like a classic BBC fudge,  so they can avoid sacking but  look tough. It's backfired becouse GL is now unmanageable. He's in breach or he's not, it's that simple. 

I personally agree with his tweet comments,  but is wrong to look at it that way. What we're TOLD is he's covered by policy so it's correct he follows it.

You can't have broadcasters who are untouchable in an organisation as its weak and damaging to long-term trust

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Steve in Pudsey - 11-03-2023

But he clearly hasn't breached the policy, the example of a sports presenter commenting on politics being low risk to the BBC reputation and impartiality is explicitly given in the Editorial guidelines.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - TVenthusiasm - 11-03-2023

Looks like BBC Scotland is also affected:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-64926313

Not a great day for the BBC...

---

harshy - harshy - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 05:23 PM)TMD_24 Wrote:  Just a 20 min edition of Match Of The Day tonight with no commentary!

https://twitter.com/Lawton_Times/status/1634589594950807553?s=20 
https://twitter.com/Lawton_Times/status/1634582189256966144?s=20 

That’s like watching a European sports channel where they offer atmosphere and the native language I think Amazon do that too in the UK.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Stockland Hillman - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 05:16 PM)Adsales Wrote:  

(11-03-2023, 05:02 PM)Stockland Hillman Wrote:  Wrong, I'm afraid in every respect 

Companies and suppliers usually have contracts which cover all issues of conduct where the conduct may affect the position or reputation of the contracting party. 

It's a basic tenet of business,  used widely where outsourcing or franchising takes place to protect the master organisations reputation.  They also cover post engagement behavior

In law it's actually easier to control a contractor than a staffer

Wrong, for the simple reason that you’re confusing contractual provisions on reputational damage with day-to-day control. The former doesn’t touch IR-35. The second very much.

The BBC argues he breached impartiality rules. He is, as long as he is not on air or making comments on behalf of the BBC, not subject to those rules. Just as Andrew Neill and Chris Packham were/are not.

But I’ll leave that there as it would derail the thread.

Simply not true.  You're conflating a commercial contract with staff rules 

A contract can require anything if both parties agree on signing. What's said, done, auctioned.  The parties would just in advance agree scope and limitations.

Like I said,  it's easier to control contractors than staff , for lots of legal reasons 

IR35, staff social media guidelines,  public statements etc are all meaningless in this situation.  The only thing that matters is the GL & BBC contract terms

---