[Adsales]

Not without a change of the law. The exception would have to be legislated for but that of course would open a can of worms. Why would the BBC be treated differently? It's all about control of the client over the freelancer which has to be pretty much absent to stay outside IR-35.

An employee has to follow reasonable instructions given by the employer and that can include outside working hours social media use for example. A freelancer has to produce deliverables for which they invoice. It doesn't matter how they are delivered as long as they are. Even something as small as a combination of the freelancer using equipment provided by the client plus a company e-mail address plus being given a business card can be enough to push them inside IR-35. There have been cases where freelancers being included in an all-company Christmas party invite e-mail was sufficient!

You can have a play with the HMRC status checker 
www.tax.service.gov.uk 

Personally I think anyone who appears on the news or current affairs shows should be employed and be barred from any work which could be seen as not being impartial. Be that Fiona Bruce writing for the Express, Cathy Newman being the voice of the left on Times Radio or Rees-Mogg (and others) continuing to be sitting MPs while presenting shows on GBN.

Adsales and I respectively disagree on this point, while what he says is true of run of the mill outsourced workers and contractors, it isn't  true in all situations.

Only a judge can determine the enforceability of a contract clause, but a well drafted agreement can deal with the reputational protection requirement requiring similar/same behaviour as wider workers in an organisation. IR35 issues are a separate argument (one even judges have differed)

I can tell you categorically that onair/performing talent do have enforceable restrictions at higher ££ levels (negotiated rather than default contract) they are enforceable because agreeing to said terms gives  a defined financial reward. 

For example, how do you think actors who do something reputationally 'bad' get terminated and removed from role mid contract?  I've personally seen examples on both sides.

You are again conflating different issues.

Post contract restrictions, reasons for summary termination and provisions around bringing the client into disrepute/making disparaging comments are included in, and absolutely fine, in any "run of the mill" agreement. They are nothing special and none of those things impact on IR-35 or employment status. Those things don't create control. 

An agreement can very much state that the contractor cannot criticise or disparage the client, be that on social media, verbally or in any other way ; it cannot however state that the contractor is subject to an internal social media policy when not providing services to the client or worse, at all times. That is the kind of control that only an employer can exercise over an employee.

I posted part of one clause of an agreement last weekend and I can happily post more. They are not sensitive or confidential but I think this is not the right place and we are unlikely going to agree.

By the way, to make things even more complicated - GL's contracts with the BBC (the previous one) and with BT Sports were held by him personally and not by Gary Lineker Media. So if he's found to have had the status of an employee for the period of those contracts then the bill most likely lands with the BBC and BT Sports, not him. That of course makes the BBC's actions over the weekend even more absurd.

[Former Member 237]

This was a disaster for the BBC, putting aside what the tweet was about, the BBC had introduced a policy and did not enforce it fairly or correctly. G.L should have been suspended for a time as he did break the policy. But others who allegedly broke it in the past two years since it was introduced were not. Had they enforced it from the time it was introduced, this never would have happened. Now the leadership of the BBC has lost confidence and I can't help wonder if this whole affair will isolate the BBC from vast areas of the population. If the BBC is to move on, the leaders will have to change very soon, or else it will linger. I do not see a long term future for G.L at the BBC and would suggest that come 2025 his contract is not renewed. There was an element of devil may care to his behaviour as there was on the BBC side in regards to their handling of it, the top has to go, and so does he in the long run to restore confidence for all.

[Humphrey Hacker]

This was a disaster for the BBC, putting aside what the tweet was about, the BBC had introduced a policy and did not enforce it fairly or correctly. G.L should have been suspended for a time as he did break the policy. But others who allegedly broke it in the past two years since it was introduced were not. Had they enforced it from the time it was introduced, this never would have happened. Now the leadership of the BBC has lost confidence and I can't help wonder if this whole affair will isolate the BBC from vast areas of the population. If the BBC is to move on, the leaders will have to change very soon, or else it will linger. I do not see a long term future for G.L at the BBC and would suggest that come 2025 his contract is not renewed. There was an element of devil may care to his behaviour as there was on the BBC side in regards to their handling of it, the top has to go, and so does he in the long run to restore confidence for all.

I think disaster is too strong a word. Yes the BBC should have clamped down on this at the start which shows a lack of courage but the idea that the corporation has been fatally wounded is ridiculous. Yes there will have to be changes not just in management but also in how the people who work for them are regarded.

[Brekkie]

This story should really warrant as much widespread coverage as the Lineker story and is the real issue with impartiality at the BBC - and no doubt led to where we got last week. The BBC basically under the instructions of Downing Street telling reporters what language to use (so "lockdown" wasn't seen in BBC News articles) and then instructing them to be more sceptical of Labour plans. It is the people who parrotted these messages to BBC staff on behalf of the government whose positions should be reviewed, not somebody daring to have an opinion on a government policy widely criticised by independent organisations.

www.theguardian.com 

BBC came under No 10 pressure to avoid using ‘lockdown’ in early pandemic, leak …
Exclusive: leaked emails and WhatsApp messages reveal reporters also told to be …
  Source: www.theguardian.com

[DavidWhitfield]

Interesting article, Brekkie. I hadn't seen this. I don't know whether 'shutdown' sounds any less severe than 'lockdown' personally, but that's really not the point of the article.

One BBC insider said: “Particularly on the website, our headlines have been determined by calls from Downing Street on a very regular basis.”

I'm afraid I'm simply not knowledgeable enough in the field to know whether this is common practice politically or not. Would, for example, in the days of Thatcher, someone from Downing Street routinely call around the news outlets to try to influence what the BBC / ITN / newspapers etc cover in this way? In Blair's day? In Cameron's? Is it seen as a run of the mill part of politics/journalism? Or is the suggestion that this interference was a completely newfound thing at the outset/during the pandemic?

In any case, to me - admittedly as a complete layman - it should be entirely up to each individual broadcaster/publication which stories they publish and what (if any) angle they come from and they should be able to simply say 'no' if any such unwelcome coercion on which stories to push and which stories to dampen comes in from any outside agencies. (I accept I'm probably seeing things far too simplistically so I'm genuinely interested in the responses from those who have more experience.)

[Brekkie]

Well Thatcher famously tried and I suspect they all tried over the years, but the difference seems to be it didn't work back then.

I get with the initial pandemic lockdown there would need to be some communication between the government and the BBC over the messaging and perhaps the language around that messaging, but it seems this went beyond that. It would be interesting to know too whether it's just the BBC who comes under pressure or whether such calls are made to all news organisations too. And it does also raise the issue of whether the government have any direct influence over the editorial of GB News.

[Stockland Hillman]

Interesting article, Brekkie. I hadn't seen this. I don't know whether 'shutdown' sounds any less severe than 'lockdown' personally, but that's really not the point of the article.

One BBC insider said: “Particularly on the website, our headlines have been determined by calls from Downing Street on a very regular basis.”

I'm afraid I'm simply not knowledgeable enough in the field to know whether this is common practice politically or not. Would, for example, in the days of Thatcher, someone from Downing Street routinely call around the news outlets to try to influence what the BBC / ITN / newspapers etc cover in this way? In Blair's day? In Cameron's? Is it seen as a run of the mill part of politics/journalism? Or is the suggestion that this interference was a completely newfound thing at the outset/during the pandemic?

In any case, to me - admittedly as a complete layman - it should be entirely up to each individual broadcaster/publication which stories they publish and what (if any) angle they come from and they should be able to simply say 'no' if any such unwelcome coercion on which stories to push and which stories to dampen comes in from any outside agencies. (I accept I'm probably seeing things far too simplistically so I'm genuinely interested in the responses from those who have more experience.)

Political communication staff have always applied pressure on media on choice of language.

This went into overdrive with the 97 Blair government,  Alistair Campbell and team were notorious.

Most of the 'exclusives' you see in newspapers are setup by offering one story in return for not going on another

You'd be surprised how much lobbying on even story selection, wording,  choice of contributions ans pictures goes on. You'd be even more surprised to learn how much is agreed before appearing.

It's an all party and governments thing,  disingenuous to paint it as a Tory thing

[Stockland Hillman]

Well Thatcher famously tried and I suspect they all tried over the years, but the difference seems to be it didn't work back then.

It worked all the time, particularly New Labour era. People lost their lives over political/media narrative control battles (Dr David Kelly)

Ludicrous pictures tanks and rockets rolling towards Heathrow to 'protect' from a WMD strike , setup for the news bulletins with zero military value , lots of political value.

Political figures lobby and threaten media

[matthieu1221]

Interesting article, Brekkie. I hadn't seen this. I don't know whether 'shutdown' sounds any less severe than 'lockdown' personally, but that's really not the point of the article.

One BBC insider said: “Particularly on the website, our headlines have been determined by calls from Downing Street on a very regular basis.”

I'm afraid I'm simply not knowledgeable enough in the field to know whether this is common practice politically or not. Would, for example, in the days of Thatcher, someone from Downing Street routinely call around the news outlets to try to influence what the BBC / ITN / newspapers etc cover in this way? In Blair's day? In Cameron's? Is it seen as a run of the mill part of politics/journalism? Or is the suggestion that this interference was a completely newfound thing at the outset/during the pandemic?

In any case, to me - admittedly as a complete layman - it should be entirely up to each individual broadcaster/publication which stories they publish and what (if any) angle they come from and they should be able to simply say 'no' if any such unwelcome coercion on which stories to push and which stories to dampen comes in from any outside agencies. (I accept I'm probably seeing things far too simplistically so I'm genuinely interested in the responses from those who have more experience.)

Not a UK thing but I suspect it happens here too but there can be agreements to not run this story and be compensated in favour of another juicy story, etc... etc... Just as there can be agreements for exclusives to not use certain language/tone in agreement for getting it. The 'regular basis' thing regarding the website headlines does seem rather unusual.

I do think the BBC should be above and beyond all this though as a public broadcaster. Though there is the obvious flipside, in the context of threats to scrap the license fee at the time, that upsetting the govt would probably not be in their best interest which is an issue which private broadcasters/press would not have to contend with.

Would be interesting to see whether those who did use the term 'lockdown' also got similar messages from Downing Street or not.

[Humphrey Hacker]

Interesting article, Brekkie. I hadn't seen this. I don't know whether 'shutdown' sounds any less severe than 'lockdown' personally, but that's really not the point of the article.


I'm afraid I'm simply not knowledgeable enough in the field to know whether this is common practice politically or not. Would, for example, in the days of Thatcher, someone from Downing Street routinely call around the news outlets to try to influence what the BBC / ITN / newspapers etc cover in this way? In Blair's day? In Cameron's? Is it seen as a run of the mill part of politics/journalism? Or is the suggestion that this interference was a completely newfound thing at the outset/during the pandemic?

In any case, to me - admittedly as a complete layman - it should be entirely up to each individual broadcaster/publication which stories they publish and what (if any) angle they come from and they should be able to simply say 'no' if any such unwelcome coercion on which stories to push and which stories to dampen comes in from any outside agencies. (I accept I'm probably seeing things far too simplistically so I'm genuinely interested in the responses from those who have more experience.)

Not a UK thing but I suspect it happens here too but there can be agreements to not run this story and be compensated in favour of another juicy story, etc... etc... Just as there can be agreements for exclusives to not use certain language/tone in agreement for getting it. The 'regular basis' thing regarding the website headlines does seem rather unusual.

I do think the BBC should be above and beyond all this though as a public broadcaster. Though there is the obvious flipside, in the context of threats to scrap the license fee at the time, that upsetting the govt would probably not be in their best interest which is an issue which private broadcasters/press would not have to contend with.

Would be interesting to see whether those who did use the term 'lockdown' also got similar messages from Downing Street or not.

When I read these kind of posts about getting rid of the license fee I always ask myself "what can replace it?"