[Brekkie]

This is the behaviour of an activist, not a BBC presenter. It doesn’t matter if it is a good cause, that does not distract from the point of the issue.

It's the behaviour of a decent human being, not an activist. And it's the anti-Lineker and anti-BBC brigade that (deliberately) distract from the real issue by blaming the BBC rather than defending the arguably indefensible policy being discussed.

The far bigger issue with BBC impartiality is the known bias of the (non-MP) guests repeatedly asked on Question Time, Politics Live and LK on Sunday. He may have been asked but to my knowledge Lineker has never appeared on these, despite other entertainment figures being asked. If he said the same thing on Question Time as he tweeted out would that be seen as a problem?

[Former Member 237]

I have already explained that as far as I am concerned I don’t care what the view is or who is making it. Just that it’s not good for the BBC. I am talking about right here and now and the era we are in now. The problem with today’s world is that you cannot give an opinion without it being put through the prism of activism and conspiracy, that it is somehow against one side or another. It is not good for the BBC for anyone to air opinions beyond their remit. So far both examples given, AN and DA are commenting in their respective fields. GL is a sports presenter, all I ask is that he sticks to sports. If he wishes to be an activist, please leave the coporation.

Look I think we are kind of going around in circles here. I believe the BBC should introduce a far stricter policy on all staff, and that GL should leave the corporation. GL doesn’t have to leave, if the BBC tie down the policy and he follows it, there is no problem. Going forward any presenter/staff member who airs their personal opinion, in public should be subject to said policy. Any other staff who choose to take unofficial strike action should be subject to policy and face disciplinary. It was a mistake to yield to the previous staff who “walked out”. Through such actions this will ensure the BBC is truly impartial and open to all licences fee payers. But I don’t think it will happen. We have to be smart about this, this is not student politics. Get real.

One BBC is just that. He works for the BBC and the BBC also report on government policy. Walkers has no connection as it is a crisp maker. It doesn’t report on the government, and to add I am not required to buy a packet of crisps to access a communication method….

I hope common sense prevails. Let’s look forward to 2024…

[DTV]

Look I think we are kind of going around in circles here. I believe the BBC should introduce a far stricter policy on all staff, and that GL should leave the corporation. Going forward any presenter/staff member who airs their personal opinion, in public should be subject to said policy. Any other staff who choose to take unofficial strike action should be subject to policy and face disciplinary. Through such actions this will ensure the BBC is truly impartial and open to all licences fee payers. But I don’t think it will happen. We have to be smart about this, this is not student politics. Get real.

Fine, you can think that. But something that broad is an absurd and likely unenforceable policy. Under your rules, Alex Scott saying there should be better access to football for girls in school is a sackable offence (viewpoint, criticism of govt policy), an LGBT presenter attending a Pride march would face disciplinary action (attending what is arguably a political demonstration), Jeremy Vine is blacklisted because of his cycling safety advocacy (personal opinion and activism). And you can't do a 'within your area' loophole, because then Chris Mason can start having opinions about politics or Hugh Pym can broadcast his views on health policy. Or is News different after all?

An actual 'whiter than white, no opinions of any kind' rule would leave the BBC filled solely with the beigest possible individuals, presiding over the most anodyne programming. I don't the BBC would be better for that.

[Former Member 237]

Well I have to tell you that the BBC is already partially introducing such bans.

m.jpost.com 

BBC bans staff from attending London march against antisemitism - The Jerusalem …
Jewish staff were refused permission to attend the march in London, in spite of …
  Source: www.jpost.com

Bringing up the social issues which some may choose to promote, and someone saying they shouldn’t promote it, does not mean they are against the thing the person is trying to promote. But I someone’s feel they are brought up have that impact in a debate. I am not saying I am for or against any of these things, just that the medium used to promote them is unwise for the BBC impartiality.

The BBC managed for 80 or so years without such public input from staff members so I think it can last another 80 without it too. Of course it’s hard to compare twitter and social media with newspapers and other medium in the old days, but the equivalent is effectively using a megaphone to large numbers of people. Let’s see what happens, as I say I don’t think it will happen but that’s my view, others as you may disagree and that’s perfectly fine. Only the future will show which path should have been followed.

[DTV]

The BBC managed for 80 or so years without such public input from staff members so I think it can last another 80 without it too.

Patrick Moore alone demonstrates this isn't true, publicly expressing a number of 'non-mainstream' political views over a BBC career that spanned seven decades. He's far from the only outspoken BBC presenter and, as you say, the BBC has managed just fine.

You can argue the difference between social media and newspapers, but Lineker's Twitter followership is about the same as the historic readership of some of the newspapers that presenters like Clarkson had a column in.

[harshy]

They can’t really get rid of Lineker they only just renewed match of the day and bbc obviously rate him hence he gets the big bucks out of our license fees.

[Adsales]

Just to remind people again that GL is not a BBC employee. Seems to have been forgotten by some. He can't be disciplined like an employee. The BBC may, depending on its reasons, terminate the contract with his company.

As it stands, that is unlikely because not only is it open to very wide interpretation as to whether his tweets broke the most recent guidelines but more importantly the BBC is not interested in losing him.

The guidelines are by the way exactly that - guidelines for freelance presenters. They're not enforceable, they're not binding and it would only be a court which can decide as to whether a "breach" of the guidelines by a freelancer was sufficient reason to terminate a contract before the agreed termination date. If the "breach" was not found to be sufficient, then the BBC would be liable for full payment up to and including the termination date set out in the contract.

FYI: The guidelines allow for a freelance presenter to say and do as they wish on their personal social media outside of a period of 2 weeks prior and two weeks post their appearance on the BBC and during election periods. That is as far as it will go as any further restrictions would push freelancers into IR-35 which is neither in the interest of the BBC nor the freelancers.

[Humphrey Hacker]

The problem with that particular tweet was that various media outlets exaggerated and embellished what he actually said.

He specifically criticised the use of language not dissimilar to that of 1930s Germany. That was surely a back reference to an actual holocaust survivor calling out the Home Secretary on the same point a few weeks previously?

www.independent.co.uk 

It wasn't his analogy, and the originator of the analogy seems to be uniquely qualified and entitled to make that comparison.

An alternative old fashioned view to the one which you articulate is that many people would prefer not to have political leaders making policy and using language that invites that kind of comparison.

I want political leaders to have policy. Yes the originator of the analogy is justified in making that comparison but I just felt that Linekar was inflaming an already delicate situation.

Anyway it's a contentious issue and I don't want to get dragged into any online slanging matches especially not at this time of year.

[Brekkie]

Even that seems excessive that you could work one day a month and the guidelines effectively silence you for the entire year.

[Steve in Pudsey]

I think we are getting to a point of agreeing to disagree.

It's been refreshing to be able to debate this in a respectful and adult way. Can I thank the mods for letting this thread run in the way that it has?