[Adsales]

Not without a change of the law. The exception would have to be legislated for but that of course would open a can of worms. Why would the BBC be treated differently? It's all about control of the client over the freelancer which has to be pretty much absent to stay outside IR-35.

An employee has to follow reasonable instructions given by the employer and that can include outside working hours social media use for example. A freelancer has to produce deliverables for which they invoice. It doesn't matter how they are delivered as long as they are. Even something as small as a combination of the freelancer using equipment provided by the client plus a company e-mail address plus being given a business card can be enough to push them inside IR-35. There have been cases where freelancers being included in an all-company Christmas party invite e-mail was sufficient!

You can have a play with the HMRC status checker 
www.tax.service.gov.uk 

Personally I think anyone who appears on the news or current affairs shows should be employed and be barred from any work which could be seen as not being impartial. Be that Fiona Bruce writing for the Express, Cathy Newman being the voice of the left on Times Radio or Rees-Mogg (and others) continuing to be sitting MPs while presenting shows on GBN.

Adsales and I respectively disagree on this point, while what he says is true of run of the mill outsourced workers and contractors, it isn't  true in all situations.

Only a judge can determine the enforceability of a contract clause, but a well drafted agreement can deal with the reputational protection requirement requiring similar/same behaviour as wider workers in an organisation. IR35 issues are a separate argument (one even judges have differed)

I can tell you categorically that onair/performing talent do have enforceable restrictions at higher ££ levels (negotiated rather than default contract) they are enforceable because agreeing to said terms gives  a defined financial reward. 

For example, how do you think actors who do something reputationally 'bad' get terminated and removed from role mid contract?  I've personally seen examples on both sides.

You are again conflating different issues.

Post contract restrictions, reasons for summary termination and provisions around bringing the client into disrepute/making disparaging comments are included in, and absolutely fine, in any "run of the mill" agreement. They are nothing special and none of those things impact on IR-35 or employment status. Those things don't create control. 

An agreement can very much state that the contractor cannot criticise or disparage the client, be that on social media, verbally or in any other way ; it cannot however state that the contractor is subject to an internal social media policy when not providing services to the client or worse, at all times. That is the kind of control that only an employer can exercise over an employee.

I posted part of one clause of an agreement last weekend and I can happily post more. They are not sensitive or confidential but I think this is not the right place and we are unlikely going to agree.

By the way, to make things even more complicated - GL's contracts with the BBC (the previous one) and with BT Sports were held by him personally and not by Gary Lineker Media. So if he's found to have had the status of an employee for the period of those contracts then the bill most likely lands with the BBC and BT Sports, not him. That of course makes the BBC's actions over the weekend even more absurd.