Posts: 1,170
Threads: 2
Likes Received: 1,664 in 623 posts
Likes Given: 262
Joined: Jul 2022
(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.
Posts: 554
Threads: 1
Likes Received: 740 in 386 posts
Likes Given: 1,293
Joined: Oct 2022
(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.
Posts: 103
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 216 in 78 posts
Likes Given: 96
Joined: Nov 2022
(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.
(This post was last modified: 11-03-2023, 05:20 PM by
Adsales.)
Posts: 234
Threads: 6
Likes Received: 578 in 159 posts
Likes Given: 90
Joined: Aug 2022
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.
Posts: 524
Threads: 9
Likes Received: 767 in 321 posts
Likes Given: 23
Joined: Jul 2022
Just a 20 min edition of Match Of The Day tonight with no commentary!
twitter.com
twitter.com
Posts: 236
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 569 in 158 posts
Likes Given: 193
Joined: Oct 2022
(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
Posts: 1,102
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 1,352 in 538 posts
Likes Given: 362
Joined: Jul 2022
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.
Posts: 269
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 447 in 142 posts
Likes Given: 170
Joined: Jul 2022
Looks like BBC Scotland is also affected:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-64926313
Not a great day for the BBC...
Posts: 924
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 1,745 in 466 posts
Likes Given: 1,097
Joined: Jul 2022
(11-03-2023, 05:23 PM)TMD_24 Wrote: Just a 20 min edition of Match Of The Day tonight with no commentary!
twitter.com
twitter.com
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.
Posts: 236
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 569 in 158 posts
Likes Given: 193
Joined: Oct 2022
(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