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 - UTVLifer - 11-03-2023

There are rumours that the effective talent strike could go beyond BBC Sport

https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1634580403620134912?s=61&t=9PSUu8dUPDOGotmQBtN_ig 

---

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

(11-03-2023, 06:15 PM)UTVLifer Wrote:  There are rumours that the effective talent strike could go beyond BBC Sport

https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1634580403620134912?s=61&t=9PSUu8dUPDOGotmQBtN_ig 

Wouldn’t be surprised. As I said, people are furious. This goes to the fundamental principles on which the BBC stands for many of its staff.

---

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

(11-03-2023, 05:31 PM)Steve in Pudsey Wrote:  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.

Any controversy should have been met with a statement from the BBC saying “Lineker’s views are his own and not that of the corporation, as a freelancer who presents non-news programming, he’s entitled to publish his own views on other platforms, his views aren’t representative of the BBC which is politically neutral”. It wouldn’t have shut people up, but it would have avoided this much bigger mess.

The standard needs to be the same whether it’s Jeremy Clarkson a few years ago or Lord Sugar. And depend on whether elements of the press choose to make an issue out of it.

---

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

This is the sort of thing that will stick. BBC's own presenters starting to publicly point out not only the Lineker case but highlight the Sharp problem.

Quote:The BBC has editorial guidelines. They do differ slightly between different sections of the BBC . I work in news so the rules are much stricter and rightly so because people do have to trust in the impartiality of the BBC's news output. The Director General has been very clear that impartiality is his priority and I have seen that play out with a focus that I have not witnessed before. One of the many questions raised by Gary and his tweets is while he has been asked to "step back" why is a man who is reported to have donated £400k to the Conservative Party still the Chairman of the BBC. I have been asked this many times now. If perception is important how will the BBC deal with that issue? I struggled with posting this because I felt fearful to do so. But then realised that this is a legitimate question that would be discussed on my show. I feel sad that I should feel fearful though. I believe in the BBC passionately but consistency is important.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CppR5IcshmF/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=b7d1d019-fc0d-4270-86e8-8817e3090213 

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - James2001 - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 06:14 PM)lhx1985 Wrote:  Im hoping for a run out of the Potters Wheel.

Bring back the test card!

---

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

Sky News is reporting that Bectu is now asking the BBC Director-General for an "urgent response" regarding the Lineker row, and saying that they are disappointed by how the BBC handled the issue.

---

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

(11-03-2023, 06:19 PM)Jon Wrote:  

(11-03-2023, 05:31 PM)Steve in Pudsey Wrote:  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.

Any controversy should have been met with a statement from the BBC saying “Lineker’s views are his own and not that of the corporation, as a freelancer who presents non-news programming, he’s entitled to publish his own views on other platforms, his views aren’t representative of the BBC which is politically neutral”. It wouldn’t have shut people up, but it would have avoided this much bigger mess.

Which is what they said in 2018 when he was posting about Brexit.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Newshound47 - 11-03-2023

I could see Music radio being the next area to see de facto strikes. Or maybe even the long running dramas through those are on different social media contracts surely.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - CF1 - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 06:19 PM)Jon Wrote:  

(11-03-2023, 05:31 PM)Steve in Pudsey Wrote:  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.

Any controversy should have been met with a statement from the BBC saying “Lineker’s views are his own and not that of the corporation, as a freelancer who presents non-news programming, he’s entitled to publish his own views on other platforms, his views aren’t representative of the BBC which is politically neutral”. It wouldn’t have shut people up, but it would have avoided this much bigger mess.

Exactly this. You're right - it wouldn't have closed down the "noise" completely, but it wouldn't have escalated to this. I despair of what Tim Davie has done. I've had my misgivings in recent times in what we're seeing of what's happening to the BBC News Channel, but BBC management this weekend has been utterly disastrous. They have, in the course of 24 hours, shattered the BBC Sport division. It is unforgivable.

---

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

(11-03-2023, 05:45 PM)Adsales Wrote:  

(11-03-2023, 05:36 PM)Stockland Hillman Wrote:  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

Honest question - have you ever seen an agreement for the provision of services issued by the BBC or any other broadcaster (or business in general)?

Happy to take this to PM to explain to you why you’re wrong. 

You’re conflating so many entirely unrelated things.

Yes I have. Non BBC but several major UK broadcasters.

Without disclosing specifics, all DO include mechanics to bind contractors [and obligate them to pass on to downstream contractors] many things covered in staff handbooks including social media and Non disparagment policies in addition to fairness  and equality policies of the broadcaster where they go futher than basic law; along with editorial codes 

While General 'disrepute' clauses are tricky  to enforce, as they require demonstration of loss, binding contractors into behaviour clauses of defined policy IS done,  widely.  I can think of a major US owned corp who go as far as defining the percentage of the fee at risk for breaches,  along with methodology for determining a breach 

I'm sure you understand I'm being very broad in this discussion,  but am very confident I'm not wrong.

We've a very mixed membership here but you are very welcome to PM

---