[IanJRedman]

Dan Roan has deleted his tweet about the commentators pulling out...

[dvboy]

Dan Roan has deleted his tweet about the commentators pulling out...

Think he reposted it to add the link...
twitter.com 

[Bluecortina]

So it seems pretty clear that Gary’s contract doesn’t limit social media use or restrict it any way. That means he’s not bound by anything the BBC says about it.

So the standoff is clearly about them wishing to have him sign an addendum to cover social media and he’s refusing to do so and rightly so.

What no doubt complicates matters is that the agreement is likely between the BBC and his limited company which means the BBC has no influence on him full stop. He is simply the “individual” provided by his company to provide services to the BBC.

Unless this article is wrong, as reported, his use of social media is restricted specifically in relation to impartiality and Tim Davie sets that out quite clearly.


news.sky.com 

Gary Lineker to adhere to new BBC impartiality rules after signing fresh five-ye…
The BBC made the announcement as part of its annual report, adding that impartia…
  Source: news.sky.com

[RhysJR]

Good question Michael.

twitter.com 

[Yorksman]

A tweet from Conor McNamara.

us.v-cdn.net 

[RhysJR]

A tweet from Conor McNamara.

us.v-cdn.net 

The same Conor McNamara who is apparently scheduled to be on the world feed for Newcastle v. Wolves on Sunday. Hope this doesn't spread to MOTD2 or this could get a little messier.

[matthieu1221]

The Lineker story will go away eventually, but this sort will not. Forget the double standards of the past. To a certain extent, if they announced some sort of new policy and apply to either *everybody* or *nobody* that will eventually blow over. On the other hand, people who were previously unaware of top management's links to the government will be now. That is not something that can easily be solved unless everyone at the top with such ties is thrown out. This is what will, at the end of the day, damage trust. Not what Lineker said, not the double standards, but this.

twitter.com 

[interestednovice]

It’s probably a fair point that issues get blown up, but I expect that really to go both ways.

If we have a Conservative government, people supporting Labour will claim the BBC has “government bias” and look to point out the bias. If we have a Labour government, of course those who are Conservative-supporting would be doing the same thing. Social media, in general, is “populated” largely by people who skew to the left. Large sections of the press, conversely, skew to the right. The BBC has to walk a tightrope with every sensitive issue. It’s partly why it can’t be seen to “let things go” if there is a clamour for action to be taken, and why an apology in this case probably wouldn’t even have worked as certain people would not have allowed this to be brushed under the carpet anyway.

But they should just 'let things go', especially if they are just a storm in a teacup anyway. These things are generally all forgotten about after a day or two anyway. The BBC should be bold, unafraid, confident. It is a byword for quality across the world, and the epitome of public service broadcasting. They ought to remember how much goodwill they have, not just here but internationally, too. Have some balls, for heaven's sake!

Whilst I agree with you generally, I think the pressure on the BBC from itself (at management level) and the wider media, especially, is that it must be “seen to be firm” once it takes a stance, so can’t allow spats of any sort to go unpunished. Because there is always a focus on value for money, it’s especially distasteful if one of its highest earners is seen to be “crossing the line”. There also seems to be an unwritten element to the rules where you get a few strikes and then something has to happen, as the BBC starts to look embarrassing if no action is taken. That was the case with Clarkson and it appears to be the case here too.

[RhysJR]

Meanwhile in Westminster...

twitter.com 

[DeMarkay]

twitter.com