[Stockland Hillman]

Simply not true.  You're conflating a commercial contract with staff rules 

A contract can require anything if both parties agree on signing. What's said, done, auctioned.  The parties would just in advance agree scope and limitations.

Like I said,  it's easier to control contractors than staff , for lots of legal reasons 

IR35, staff social media guidelines,  public statements etc are all meaningless in this situation.  The only thing that matters is the GL & BBC contract terms

Honest question - have you ever seen an agreement for the provision of services issued by the BBC or any other broadcaster (or business in general)?

Happy to take this to PM to explain to you why you’re wrong. 

You’re conflating so many entirely unrelated things.

Yes I have. Non BBC but several major UK broadcasters.

Without disclosing specifics, all DO include mechanics to bind contractors [and obligate them to pass on to downstream contractors] many things covered in staff handbooks including social media and Non disparagment policies in addition to fairness  and equality policies of the broadcaster where they go futher than basic law; along with editorial codes 

While General 'disrepute' clauses are tricky  to enforce, as they require demonstration of loss, binding contractors into behaviour clauses of defined policy IS done,  widely.  I can think of a major US owned corp who go as far as defining the percentage of the fee at risk for breaches,  along with methodology for determining a breach 

I'm sure you understand I'm being very broad in this discussion,  but am very confident I'm not wrong.

We've a very mixed membership here but you are very welcome to PM