Posts: 239
Threads: 2
Likes Received: 262 in 126 posts
Likes Given: 3
Joined: Aug 2022
The old and new "rules" cover all who have a face on Tv (or voice on radio)
or are employed by the BBC.
As a result of the Lineker incident and the Hardie report the Guidance has changed to clarify for everyone
and it brings in a new category of Flagship Programme or Presenter who are more restricted than the average BBC employee.
but less so than "Individuals working in news and current affairs (across all divisions) and factual journalism production"
(but note what factual Journalism is - this may also be seen as a change)
The guidance for personal social media has not changed.
Posts: 1,514
Threads: 10
Likes Received: 1,702 in 709 posts
Likes Given: 1,661
Joined: Oct 2022
Well, we are here once again with Gary.
www.bbc.co.uk
Posts: 623
Threads: 8
Likes Received: 1,248 in 384 posts
Likes Given: 60
Joined: Jul 2022
(13-12-2023, 05:19 PM)RhysJR Wrote: Well, we are here once again with Gary.
www.bbc.co.uk
I can't help thinking that the BBC would benefit from simply not renewing Gary's contract when it expires. Firstly, it would allow them to employ someone at a similar or cheaper salary for MOTD and other sporting events. Secondly, it would avoid the BBC getting dragged into the mire every time he expresses an opinion.
They're unlikely to suspend him, given what happened the last time they did.
Formerly 'Charlie Wells' of TV Forum.
Posts: 942
Threads: 1
Likes Received: 796 in 381 posts
Likes Given: 248
Joined: Oct 2022
It is starting to become a regular thing with Gary, and the problem is that Gary doesn't seem to care - there seems to be no repercussions when he speaks out.
For me, I think the rule should be, if you work for BBC News or BBC Current Affairs, you are restricted to what you can say, and everyone else can say what they want to a certain degree.
He works for BBC Sport, he is not a newsreader, or a host of a BBC political show, so why should be be quiet?
Posts: 649
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 1,635 in 444 posts
Likes Given: 5,105
Joined: Oct 2022
They are bit stuck now, I agree.
If they suspend him, it creates a crisis as happened before. Equally, he can’t be seen as untouchable so if he does go over the line something needs to be done - either a suspension, or “the line” moved to allow more commentary from big-name presenters. Meanwhile, Gary keeps tweeting in a way which probably does contravene the guidance but there is no will to do anything about it.
It’s basically a mess.
And, if there is still genuine confusion over what is and is not allowed, then the existing guidance is clearly inadequate.
Posts: 151
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 220 in 72 posts
Likes Given: 35
Joined: Jul 2022
Don’t renew the contract, that’s the best way, when it ends. I’m sure another broadcaster will snap him up but the BBC can’t have him going off every five minutes.
Posts: 3,621
Threads: 17
Likes Received: 5,851 in 1,907 posts
Likes Given: 2,645
Joined: Jul 2022
It's not Gary who is the problem- it's those who attack him who often wish to destroy the BBC. John Nicholson has quite rightly, perhaps in jest, called out the BBC Board for their own political affiliations today.
twitter.com
I'm sure it's already been announced Gary has renewed his contract. It wouldn't save a huge amount axing him as it's likely his replacement, especially if female, would put the BBC underconsiderable pressure to come close to his salary. Both Mark Chapman and especially Gabby Logan have a similar level of experience.
Posts: 151
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 220 in 72 posts
Likes Given: 35
Joined: Jul 2022
This is where we need to separate conspiracy and fact. Anyone who works for the BBC really cannot do what Garry is doing. Do you really think someone working for any company who is so public, constantly getting involved in matters of public interest is good for said company? No it isn’t and it has to stop.
Posts: 649
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 1,635 in 444 posts
Likes Given: 5,105
Joined: Oct 2022
I tend to agree that senior figures in an organisation shouldn’t be engaging in such debates, as it creates an organisational reputation issue. That is the case if it’s the BBC or not.
Posts: 234
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 554 in 156 posts
Likes Given: 189
Joined: Oct 2022
(13-12-2023, 07:27 PM)interestednovice Wrote: They are bit stuck now, I agree.
If they suspend him, it creates a crisis as happened before. Equally, he can’t be seen as untouchable so if he does go over the line something needs to be done - either a suspension, or “the line” moved to allow more commentary from big-name presenters. Meanwhile, Gary keeps tweeting in a way which probably does contravene the guidance but there is no will to do anything about it.
It’s basically a mess.
And, if there is still genuine confusion over what is and is not allowed, then the existing guidance is clearly inadequate.
Read the guidelines here:
www.bbc.co.uk .
For those in a professional organisation, the guidelines are clear and use simple English , with a logical construct that is well within a GCSE level students grasp. Definitely within the grasp of a multi million pound senior worker, and if it's not perhaps someone could Read it to him.
There's no getting around the respect section and the requirements not to bring the BBC into disrepute.
![[-]](https://pres.cafe/images//collapse.png)
