[RhysJR]

The new guidelines are out and the most interested part seems to be the BBC clarifying 'Flagship Programmes' were presenters are subject to these new rules.

www.bbc.co.uk 

I guess all the ones you'd expect are on there (not listening presenters for Top Gear, is this a good sign the current team won't ever return?). But I think the radio list is more interested as it only lists 4 people. Neither drive time show on Radio 1 or Radio 2?

In classic BBC way, there was a cock-up in the document sent out.

twitter.com 

[m_in_m]

How did they decide who should be caught?
I find it interesting that Vernon and Scott are caught by this but not Sara or Jo.

[VMPhil]

In classic BBC way, there was a cock-up in the document sent out.

twitter.com 

Typical making a mountain out of a molehill from Scott Bryan there.

[bilky asko]

Typical making a mountain out of a molehill from Scott Bryan there.

Maybe he's a member of Document Controller Café?

[Ash101]

How did they decide who should be caught?
I find it interesting that Vernon and Scott are caught by this but not Sara or Jo.

I wonder if they set a so many million listener limit on Radio to determine “profile”?

We know Ken and Steve had very well listened to shows and neither Vernon or Scott lost many listeners in the RAJAR quarters that have been published so far?

Could Sara and the rest of R1 throughout the day fall below say a 5 million limit?

[qwerty123]

Are programmes such as Antiques Roadshow and Dragons Den really flagship shows or rather shows that happen to be presented by staff in news and current affairs, who are already covered by stricter guidelines, which are therefore easy additions to the list to hid the fact that the whole flagship programme thing was a way to limit Lineker’s comments.

[JMT1985]

So what do the new rules mean, in plain easy to understand form?

For example, if Graham Norton chose to do a really tough joke on the Prime Minister in his monologue, will Graham get hammered, or will he be given a pass?

For me, the rules could be so easily fixed as this - ANYONE who works in BBC News and BBC Current Affairs, on television, on radio or on streaming, has to abide by the strict rules on being impartial and what they can say publicly - all the rest, can say what they want, as they have nothing to do with news and current affairs.

There, how hard is that?

[eyeTV]

Graham can make a political joke in his opening monologue, this is about personal use of social media.

[Technologist]

There is a lot more than just what is a flagship programme at present

The Hardie report is a very good read
www.bbc.co.uk 

The actual guidance needs a line by line reading
www.bbc.co.uk 

Guidance: Personal Use of Social Media
HomepageAccessibility linksSkip to contentAccessibility HelpBBC Account Notifica…
  Source: www.bbc.co.uk

There are more documents including audience survey
and a general overview in the press release
www.bbc.co.uk 

New social media guidance strikes balance between freedom of expression and impa…
This follows a review by former TV executive John Hardie, which looked at the BB…
  Source: www.bbc.co.uk

And the existing personal use of social media guidance
www.bbc.co.uk 

Graham Norton’s comments would be in breach of section 4.3.17 and probably others in impartiality guidelines
www.bbc.co.uk 

Section 4: Impartiality - Guidelines - Editorial Guidelines
Section 4.3
  Source: www.bbc.co.uk

[Adsales]

So what do the new rules mean, in plain easy to understand form?

For example, if Graham Norton chose to do a really tough joke on the Prime Minister in his monologue, will Graham get hammered, or will he be given a pass?

For me, the rules could be so easily fixed as this - ANYONE who works in BBC News and BBC Current Affairs, on television, on radio or on streaming, has to abide by the strict rules on being impartial and what they can say publicly - all the rest, can say what they want, as they have nothing to do with news and current affairs.

There, how hard is that?

Well by doing that basically none of the presenters who are caught by the new rules would be covered as none of them do news or current affairs.

That aside, as I said during the Lineker saga months ago, the new rules aren’t restricting anything at all because they can’t be. That is for the simple reason that the BBC cannot restrict what a supplier (and that’s what all of them are; they’re not employees) does outside the times where they’re supplying their services to it.

So under the new rules, what Lineker said back then, is in fact explicitly allowed whereas back then some believed he is not allowed to share his opinion because he presents programmes on the BBC.