It's because this case has highlighted a grey area. He's not a contracted employee of the BBC. He's a freelancer and doesn't work on news or current affairs.
What does Liniker have on the BBC?
- Thread starter Curryman
- Start date
tangerine.com
Well-known member
They are hypocrites as well.
Macseasider
Well-known member
Careful Tory boys. Watch that blood pressure lol.
He takes (earns is what I would say) his money from the BBC when preparing for and presenting MOTD. It's simple.
M
Malced
Guest
I wouldn’t criticise him for his views, but yes I’d be criticising him for expressing his views when he’s meant to be impartial.
The other thing I’d criticise someone for is the extreme rhetoric eg referencing Nazi Germany. I don’t care how he meant it. It’s crass and insensitive. Not his finest hour.
By contrast whilst I didn’t agree with everything Marcus Rashord said, he’s not under an impartiality clause. So I would defend his right to say what he likes. He’s not divisive and doesn’t use inflammatory language like Lineker.
The old can learn from the young in this case.
Junior_BentsPlatformShoes
Well-known member
I agree. As are the Tories.
M
Malced
Guest
You’re either struggling to grasp the concept (that when you work for a paymaster there’s obligations and responsibilities) or you’re ignoring it for the convenience of your own bias. He knows the rules. He breaks them. There’s consequences. It’s simple.
tangerine.com
Well-known member
And Labour.
Oh, if it were that simple. I'm struggling to grasp nothing. This case has highlighted a grey area, which it seems you're struggling to grasp.
Junior_BentsPlatformShoes
Well-known member
Tories are the ones leaning on the BBC in this case.
Lineker is freelance, he is paid to do sport. He has a private Twitter account. The Government has leaned heavily on the BBC on this one.
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
If I accept what you say, then why do the same rules not apply to Alan Sugar? Currently on the Beeb, slagging Mick Lynch off. What is the difference?
M
Malced
Guest
Yes that’s a good point. However he will surely have some form of contract with the BBC.
I don’t know what’s in his contract, but if they’ve felt able to give him a warning of sorts in October then I assume he’s breached something in his contract I.e. an impartiality clause. They don’t seem to think it’s a grey area.
If he felt that his telling off in October was unfair then he could have challenged it. But it seems he’s carried on regardless and ignored his warning. I’m not sure if it was a formal warning but you know what I mean. They had words with him about his social media conduct.
I expect that discussion would have been documented.
So now he finds himself in hot water. He has shown bad judgement to think he could ignore the advice or warning and do the opposite. I’ve no sympathy. He knew what he was doing. He has shown quite some arrogance towards the BBC.
Last edited by a moderator:
M
Malced
Guest
M
Malced
Guest
Who the hell is that ? Can we have him banned too please?
M
Malced
Guest
I don’t know the answer to that. But I hear it was Sir Alan that did the firing.
‘Looking forward to presenting match of the day on Saturday are ya? Well, son, I’m gonna wipe that smug grin off your face with two yellow cards. So with not even an ounce of regret, you’re fired.’
Last edited by a moderator:
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
The cancelling of Lineker seems to backfiring somewhat by drawing attention to far bigger examples of political bias.
Last edited:
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
Sorry but you are wide of the mark. These are two completely separate things. One is the content of what people say. On that front I will criticise Yaxley-Lennon loudly and regularly. As for his right to say the things he does, I cannot object because I believe in the freedom of speech. The same with Lineker, albeit I broadly align with the content of his tweets as well as his freedom to say them.
Phil_bfc deux
Well-known member
You mean like Matt Le Tiissier
Threepeaksphil
Well-known member
If the no waffle MOTD goes well with viewers tonight the BBC might decide to tell Linacre and his mates who presumably have breached their contracts by refusing to appear 
and save lots of us license payers hard earned dosh.
and save lots of us license payers hard earned dosh.
poolseasider
Well-known member
Not produced by BBC separate production company who then Beeb pay same for a lot of programs.
MOD employ a producer so like the news it's their program their rules however stupid they are.
Malced, good reply, thanks. I think the fact he's been asked or told to step back while Lineker's use of social media is determined suggests the BBC recognise it's a grey area in GL's case.
Macseasider
Well-known member
M
Malced
Guest
The BBC is a long-standing corporation which will have lots of procedures and policies that underpin how it’s run. It’s not a new start-up which doesn’t yet have corporate functions well established.
The BBC has HR and legal functions. They’ll have been all over this for a long time. Since October last year as a minimum but probably much longer.
Last year, Gary wouldn’t have been asked to desist in passing down a corridor. He would have been called in for a formal meeting and it would have been documented. He would have given a copy of the discussion. There would have been various senior professionals at the meeting.
He chose to carry on regardless. So he was indeed arrogant. Probably thought he was untouchable.
So it’s clear from the BBC’s actions back in October, and their actions recently, that they don’t have any reticence with regards to this matter.
So call it a grey area if you like, but it’s clear enough for the BBC. If it was so grey they wouldn’t have felt able to act. The grey area that we won’t be seeing tonight is that weird little pointed beard Lineker sometimes has.
Ultimately the employer, and the worker need to be on the same page. (I use the terms loosely).
When the relationship breaks down it’s often game over. The trust is lost. The person who isn’t prepared to respect the values of the company is usually the one that moves on. Rightly so in this case. He can go shout from the rafters. But not when taking money from a publicly funded company.
Some of you may not like that. But that comes under the bracket of tough. Some of you may have newly discovered romantic notions of what free speech should be. And I agree. But in the real world as I’ve said before, there’s no such thing.
Seaside Aggro
Well-known member
Wilburrabbit
Well-known member
This is not about whether you like Lineker or not it is now about freedom of speech and double standards.
Why is the Government criticising him and pressurising the BBC to act when nothing has been done about Alan Sugar supporting the Conservative Party.
Neither are news readers. It is clearly wrong and the level of support shown for this principle shows that.
If you buy into this because you don’t like Lineker you are missing the point. This is an appalling example of political tampering.
Why is the Government criticising him and pressurising the BBC to act when nothing has been done about Alan Sugar supporting the Conservative Party.
Neither are news readers. It is clearly wrong and the level of support shown for this principle shows that.
If you buy into this because you don’t like Lineker you are missing the point. This is an appalling example of political tampering.
M
Malced
Guest
Risk is lower. Risk includes risk to reputation.
There’s a lower risk that I’ll be struck by lightning to say being knocked over by a car. But the outcome such as serious injury or death, are the same.
There’s a lower risk someone could damage BBC reputation but they still could. Each case is different.
His case is certainly different to say someone less well known saying that they’re not happy with government. He’s very well known. So any risk that manifests into an issue has a bigger impact.
What you’ve highlighted makes my case. I said there’s documentation and policies underpinning their code of conduct etc.
The policies indeed cover the territory which has got Lineker in trouble. He will have had this explained to him more than once. So he wasn’t ignorant of what could result. He was just arrogant.
M
Malced
Guest
Of course there’s context. The context with Lineker is that yeah he’s a sports presenter but he’s a very well known face of/off BBC.
I’m glad you apply your freedom of speech principles fairly and consistently and without bias.
But I’m tempted to go back on the thread about the All Lives Matter banner. Some of the so-called free speech lovers that have popped up on this thread will be on there calling for that lad who flew that banner to be prosecuted and sacked. Like I say, free speech doesn’t really exist. What we are all happy to allow is almost without exception, influenced by our own personal beliefs and prejudices.
By the way, those three legal words of inclusivity did get him sacked. And the words and the sentiment had nothing at all to do with his employment.
Last edited by a moderator:
M
Malced
Guest
To be clear, I’ve always supported freedom of speech. So arguing against Lineker doesn’t sit well with me.
I’m only taking that position due to the BBC stance on impartiality. They have their stipulations and he’s not abiding by them, and he’s been given fair warning, so he should be big enough to take the consequences. These are consequences he could have avoided in various different ways.
However I’m no fan of impartiality clauses. I do feel they infringe too much on personal liberties. So I’d be more than happy if they were outlawed.
I would be absolutely fine with Lineker expressing his political opinions if the impartiality clause wasn’t there. I wouldn’t agree with him on immigration but I’d defend his right to speak out as he sees fit.
Leaving aside impartiality, the employer should have some protections from being brought into disrepute.
So freedom of speech should allow someone to show their political allegiances. But should they be allowed to say something which reflects badly back on their employer? For example, the Germany reference will be offensive to some, perhaps many. That could well taint the BBC. Where does an employer draw the line?
The Jeremy Clarkson case is a good example. He said something about Meghan Markle and there was public outcry. So he had to apologise. His actions would unfortunately reflect badly on the reputation of the TV companies he contracts with. He doesn’t exist in a bubble. If he said something incredibly offensive, didn’t apologise, and the TV company stood by him they would probably lose viewers and sponsors, and have their reputation damaged.
So I think any judgement made by an employer should only be about reputational damage rather than politics.
We see it time and again where companies will drop their sponsorship of someone because of something they’ve done but also something they’ve said. It may be that persons right to express their religious influenced attitudes to gay marriage for example. But that doesn’t meant the company won’t drip them like a stone.
I’d argue that there is no free speech. It’s far too simple a concept. It doesn’t exist in reality. We all regulate our own speech based on the audience. And every word we utter is being judged and potentially, to some extent, regulated by others. It’s all about context and the audience. What’s fine to say amongst friends isn’t necessarily fine to say in earshot of strangers on the bus.
Unfortunately for Gary, who you are, who’s listening, who you contract with, all set the context/constraints around ‘freedom of speech’.
One last thought is that these impartiality clauses seem to set an impossibly high standard. And an unreasonable one. I doubt there’s many potential replacements for Gary who haven’t got a Twitter history showing some bias or other. I suppose it’s how they conduct themselves thereafter taking up employment that will be judged by their employer. But their history will be pored over, and it’s unlikely there’s gonna be anyone squeaky clean neutral enough to escape criticism and accusations of bias.
I’m only taking that position due to the BBC stance on impartiality. They have their stipulations and he’s not abiding by them, and he’s been given fair warning, so he should be big enough to take the consequences. These are consequences he could have avoided in various different ways.
However I’m no fan of impartiality clauses. I do feel they infringe too much on personal liberties. So I’d be more than happy if they were outlawed.
I would be absolutely fine with Lineker expressing his political opinions if the impartiality clause wasn’t there. I wouldn’t agree with him on immigration but I’d defend his right to speak out as he sees fit.
Leaving aside impartiality, the employer should have some protections from being brought into disrepute.
So freedom of speech should allow someone to show their political allegiances. But should they be allowed to say something which reflects badly back on their employer? For example, the Germany reference will be offensive to some, perhaps many. That could well taint the BBC. Where does an employer draw the line?
The Jeremy Clarkson case is a good example. He said something about Meghan Markle and there was public outcry. So he had to apologise. His actions would unfortunately reflect badly on the reputation of the TV companies he contracts with. He doesn’t exist in a bubble. If he said something incredibly offensive, didn’t apologise, and the TV company stood by him they would probably lose viewers and sponsors, and have their reputation damaged.
So I think any judgement made by an employer should only be about reputational damage rather than politics.
We see it time and again where companies will drop their sponsorship of someone because of something they’ve done but also something they’ve said. It may be that persons right to express their religious influenced attitudes to gay marriage for example. But that doesn’t meant the company won’t drip them like a stone.
I’d argue that there is no free speech. It’s far too simple a concept. It doesn’t exist in reality. We all regulate our own speech based on the audience. And every word we utter is being judged and potentially, to some extent, regulated by others. It’s all about context and the audience. What’s fine to say amongst friends isn’t necessarily fine to say in earshot of strangers on the bus.
Unfortunately for Gary, who you are, who’s listening, who you contract with, all set the context/constraints around ‘freedom of speech’.
One last thought is that these impartiality clauses seem to set an impossibly high standard. And an unreasonable one. I doubt there’s many potential replacements for Gary who haven’t got a Twitter history showing some bias or other. I suppose it’s how they conduct themselves thereafter taking up employment that will be judged by their employer. But their history will be pored over, and it’s unlikely there’s gonna be anyone squeaky clean neutral enough to escape criticism and accusations of bias.
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
Lineker does NOT have an “impartiality clause” in his BBC contract. He has stated so.
As a BBC contractor, rather than an employee, he ought to take note of their Guidelines if he wants less friction in his work, but he is not bound to do so.
But those BBC Guidelines are deliberately flexible even in the case of employees, and not just contractors, whereby they are free to state opinions outside their broadcasting responsibilities. BBC managers have publicly stated so in the cases of Chris Packham, Andrew Neill, Alan Sugar, Karen Brady and many more.
I’d say the BBC top management have cocked up this whole situation simply because they are running very scared of this extremist Govt which seems to want strip it of the licence fee, break it up and privatise it in chunks. But these management fools know they are very shaky ground and Lineker is putting them under great pressur by mobilising many of his colleagues to support him in direct action.
Don’t forget that Lineker has been presenting MOTD for the last 24 years ! And, at the age of 61 he has said that he is thinking of moving on and spending more time with his Goalhanger Films production company. Perhaps he is simply exploiting the BBC management incompetence to force the situation to his advantage ? He would not be the first footballer to be allowed to leave immediately while getting the remaining three years of his contract paid up in full !
As a BBC contractor, rather than an employee, he ought to take note of their Guidelines if he wants less friction in his work, but he is not bound to do so.
But those BBC Guidelines are deliberately flexible even in the case of employees, and not just contractors, whereby they are free to state opinions outside their broadcasting responsibilities. BBC managers have publicly stated so in the cases of Chris Packham, Andrew Neill, Alan Sugar, Karen Brady and many more.
I’d say the BBC top management have cocked up this whole situation simply because they are running very scared of this extremist Govt which seems to want strip it of the licence fee, break it up and privatise it in chunks. But these management fools know they are very shaky ground and Lineker is putting them under great pressur by mobilising many of his colleagues to support him in direct action.
Don’t forget that Lineker has been presenting MOTD for the last 24 years ! And, at the age of 61 he has said that he is thinking of moving on and spending more time with his Goalhanger Films production company. Perhaps he is simply exploiting the BBC management incompetence to force the situation to his advantage ? He would not be the first footballer to be allowed to leave immediately while getting the remaining three years of his contract paid up in full !
Last edited:
M
Malced
Guest
When did he say so? I’ve missed that.
I very much doubt the BBC would take this stance with him over many months on a whim. They’re not foolish when it comes to the law, contracts etc.
But if you show me proof he doesn’t have such a clause then I’ll join the case for his defence.
If you can’t show me that then you’re whole comment is misguided and flawed.
kuriousoranj
Well-known member
Whats on earth is your problem with Gary Lineker?...I can only conclude it's for being decent human being?
Congratulations on finally working out Jacob Rees Mog... just another 354 to go!
Last edited:
kuriousoranj
Well-known member
Big chance for Roger?
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
On the contrary. The BBC are dealing with this on a vague whim.
The BBC statement yesterday included the words...
The corporation said in a statement it has been in "extensive discussions with Gary and his team in recent days".
"We have said that we consider his recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines," the statement added.
"The BBC has decided that he will step back from presenting Match of the Day until we've got an agreed and clear position on his use of social media."
So the BBC does NOT have “an agreed and clear position on his use of social media”. Therefore there cannot be a binding clause in his BBC contract stating this or the BBC would have referred to it. Lineker agreed to follow the BBC Guidelines on impartiality but, as we see, they are highly flexible and can have minimal relevance to his political views.
These Guidelines been applied to different people in different ways even for presenters of political programmes tweeting about politics ! No, the BBC is simply scared the Govt will use this to crush their budget.
Last edited:
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
Furthermore, the BBC top management was quite happy to have Lineker and his co-presenters criticise Qatar for their human rights record and FIFA for abetting them, at considerable length ON BBC1 IN THE ACTUAL LIVE MATCHES IN THE WORLD CUP late last year. I recall a 20 minutes segment before the opening match.
Thus driving a coach and horses through their own impartiality guidance. And yet he is not allowed to criticise the human rights record of the Govt of which he is an actual citizen in a single tweet ? The BBC has really screwed up badly over this.
Thus driving a coach and horses through their own impartiality guidance. And yet he is not allowed to criticise the human rights record of the Govt of which he is an actual citizen in a single tweet ? The BBC has really screwed up badly over this.
Last edited:
M
Malced
Guest
Oh yes that's right. Lineker was another one of those principled celebrities who made money from the World Cup yet paid lip service to the rights of minorities.
Fact is you haven't shown me where Lineker said he wasn't bound by impartiality clauses. The BBC statement neither confirms he does or doesn't have such a clause.
M
Malced
Guest
So far we've had wonderful impartial commentary from Tony Blair's spin doctor (whose job was effectively to lie and make a liar look good), Robert Peston (disgruntled ex-BBC employee with an axe to grind), and now this well known left leaning anti-Tory fat scruffy gobshite. The evidence is overwhelming lol
Bend it like Suddick
Well-known member
...but most aren't
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
Not for nothing was Lineker sarcastically nicknamed “the Queen Mother of football”.
Macseasider
Well-known member
He's right though isn't he.
You should try taking your blue rosette off and photo of Maggie down for a while and see the real world as others do.
Watch that blood pressure.
M
Malced
Guest
Polls show that tough action on illegal immigration is what the country wants.
So exactly who is it that’s out of touch?
My blood pressure is fine that’s why I post with humour. If you want to worry about someone’s blood pressure then maybe consider the angry fat guy who you seem to follow.
You do realise that posting about some hard left idiot to try and justify your position on something gives your position no further justification at all.
There’s some Tory donor who’s gone public to say he disagrees with Lineker and that the BBC were correct. Shall I post that? No cos I don’t need my own opinions to be backed up by anyone else. We can all find someone who supports our view.
My post was exposing the nonsense of it. Three anti government or anti bbc pundits - so what??
Am I meant to say oh yeah you were right? It doesn’t work like that. I don’t need to take a lead from a fat gobshite who’s after click bait cos that’s what his industry is all about, nor do I need some posh Tory funder to convince me.
Macseasider
Well-known member
Polls show that tough action on illegal immigration is what the country wants.
So exactly is it that’s out of touch?
My blood pressure is fine that’s why I post with humour. If you want to worry about someone’s blood pressure then maybe consider the angry fat guy who you seem to follow.
You do realise that posting about some hard left idiot to try and justify your position on something gives your position no further justification at all.
There’s some Tory donor who’s gone public to say he disagrees with Lineker and that the BBC were correct. Shall I post that? No cos I don’t need my own opinions to be backed up by anyone else. We can all find someone who supports our view.
My post was exposing the nonsense of it. Three anti government or anti bbc pundits and what I’m mean to say oh yeah you were right? It doesn’t work like that. I don’t need to take a lead from a fat gobshite who’s after click bait cos that’s what his industry is all about, not do I need some posh Tory funder to convince me.
Where do you get the time to type so much? Really you should use your time better.
Which polls show this? I haven't seen any? Barbaric immigration policy is a far right wing crowd pleaser to mask the fact everything else is fcuked up I'll give you that.
I think everyone agrees we need tougher border controls. But not to criminalise men, women and children. These are human beings. For the Grace of God could be you or I.
M
Malced
Guest
I'm a far-right automated bot so it takes no time at all
Macseasider
Well-known member
I thought the bots were all Russian? You are anything but Russian!
M
Malced
Guest
They're vulnerable once in the dinghy for sure. They're vulnerable when they're exploited out of their money by criminal people smuggling gangs. They're not vulnerable when they've thousands of eros and they've come from safe territory. The Albanians are coming from a peaceful stable safe country but you'd class them as vulnerable? ridiculous.
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
Albania? Safe? Stable? Only relatively compared with their very recent past. Maybe 15 or 20 years? Less than a generation.
After the fall of Communism in 1990, considerable economic and financial resources were devoted to pyramid schemes that were widely supported by the government. The schemes swept up somewhere between one sixth and one third of the population of the country. Despite the warnings of the International Monetary Fund, their Govt defended the schemes as large investment firms, leading more people to redirect their remittances and sell their homes and cattle for cash to deposit in the schemes. The Albanian Civil War in 1997 was sparked by these pyramid scheme failures soon after its transition to a market economy.
The schemes began to collapse in late 1996, leading many of the investors to join initially peaceful protests against the government, requesting their money back. The protests turned violent in February 1997 as government forces responded by firing on the demonstrators. In March 1997, the Police and Republican Guard deserted, leaving their armouries open. These were promptly emptied by militias and criminal gangs. Gangs broke open the Albanian Govt vaults and stole the country’s entire gold reserves - all 340 kilogrammes of it.
The government was toppled and more than 2,000 people were killed. The civil war caused a wave of evacuations of foreign nationals and refugees. The United Nations deployed about 7,000 soldiers in a multinational Italian-led UN mission to Albania to restore order and rule of law.
Not what I would call “a stable country” yet.
Last edited:
basilexile
Well-known member
Perhaps Gary Lineker should pay his taxes, rather than concentrating on breaking his contractual responsibilities.