MOTD

[BC Villain]

Sounds like the BBC don't have rights to the world feed for Premier League commentary.  They're also lined up for a shoeing from the Premier League for not fulfilling the contract they have with them.

[Dave]

Sounds like the BBC don't have rights to the world feed for Premier League commentary.  They're also lined up for a shoeing from the Premier League for not fulfilling the contract they have with them.

Good. Play stupid games etc.

[clash city rocker]

Like going back in time.
As David Coleman would say....
Our second game is from the rent free stadium in London involving West ham and Aston villa. In recent years villa haven't had a good record against West ham but under the new stewardship of unai emery that may be about to change. The commentator is jonnie motswana and for those of you watching in black and white one of the teams is playing in claret and blue.

[Clark W Griswold]

Yep, Lineker is the bad guy here, not the fuckers treating human beings like absolute shit.

You do know that people can disagree with the government and also disagree with Lineker twattering about it though don’t you? Or they could agree with what he did in this instance but generally think he’s a twat and not be arsed if he’s on match of the day any more. There is more than one way to interpret.

[BC Villain]

Sounds like the BBC don't have rights to the world feed for Premier League commentary.  They're also lined up for a shoeing from the Premier League for not fulfilling the contract they have with them.

Good. Play stupid games etc.

Seems somewhat fitting https://youtu.be/es7K3LnVtW4

[itmustbe_it is!]

Seems a reasonable presumption for an organisation the size of the BBC, who , again PRESUMABLY have their contracts (especially one of that size/importance) drawn up by a HR dept with some legal oversight. I run a business with 20 employees and even we have a social media policy in our contracts. Also you are "presuming" that his previous 47000 tweets have drawn no comment from the BBC - maybe he's had previous conversations with HR about it, who knows?

All good.

You needed to highlight the paragraph below that one as well though !

[Risso]

Seems a reasonable presumption for an organisation the size of the BBC, who , again PRESUMABLY have their contracts (especially one of that size/importance) drawn up by a HR dept with some legal oversight. I run a business with 20 employees and even we have a social media policy in our contracts. Also you are "presuming" that his previous 47000 tweets have drawn no comment from the BBC - maybe he's had previous conversations with HR about it, who knows?

All good.

Whether you think the highest paid presenter on the BBC is lower risk or not, he clearly hasn't complied with 15.3.15 "Individuals must clear with the head of department and the Press Office any letters to the press or public expression of opinion if they deal with the subject matter of their programmes, relate to the BBC or broadcasting, or concern matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy or any other ‘controversial subject’."


As I said in OT, I like the BBC and while it's not perfect, I like its attempt at impartiality, and the fact that it's noticeably different from the very obvious positions of The Guardian, Sky or The Times etc. Take that away, and you may as well do away with it altogether.

[Clampy]

Left wing, right wing  can we not just agree Lineker is a complete wanker?

The post above about <removed> sums him up

No.

[hilts_coolerking]

Whether you think the highest paid presenter on the BBC is lower risk or not, he clearly hasn't complied with 15.3.15 "Individuals must clear with the head of department and the Press Office any letters to the press or public expression of opinion if they deal with the subject matter of their programmes, relate to the BBC or broadcasting, or concern matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy or any other ‘controversial subject’."


As I said in OT, I like the BBC and while it's not perfect, I like its attempt at impartiality, and the fact that it's noticeably different from the very obvious positions of The Guardian, Sky or The Times etc. Take that away, and you may as well do away with it altogether.

Part of the controversy though is about whether the BBC is applying these rules fairly and consistently across the board.

[Risso]

Whether you think the highest paid presenter on the BBC is lower risk or not, he clearly hasn't complied with 15.3.15 "Individuals must clear with the head of department and the Press Office any letters to the press or public expression of opinion if they deal with the subject matter of their programmes, relate to the BBC or broadcasting, or concern matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy or any other ‘controversial subject’."


As I said in OT, I like the BBC and while it's not perfect, I like its attempt at impartiality, and the fact that it's noticeably different from the very obvious positions of The Guardian, Sky or The Times etc. Take that away, and you may as well do away with it altogether.

Part of the controversy though is about whether the BBC is applying these rules fairly and consistently across the board.

Yes I do understand that. Everybody the guidelines apply to should be held to the same standards, absolutely, but that doesn't mean that Lineker isn't guilty of breaching the rules.

[DrGonzo]

The BBC is run by a man that helped Johnson secure a very large loan and is a tory party donor,  Shouldn't he step down? They employ Alan Sugar and Karen Brady, one a vocal tory support the other a tory member of the house of lords, shouldn't they step down? Michel Roux got the sack (sic) for advertising potatoes but Brady can vote in line with tory legislation? 
 If having no opinion is a prerequisite of working for the BBC then there will be no members of staff left.  Lineker has made an opinion on a platform outside of his employer about a subjet he obviously has a strong emotional response to, on a subject that he isn't employed by the BBC to comment on, how does that affect his ability to discuss football? 

[RamboandBruno]

The BBC is run by a man that helped Johnson secure a very large loan and is a tory party donor,  Shouldn't he step down? They employ Alan Sugar and Karen Brady, one a vocal tory support the other a tory member of the house of lords, shouldn't they step down? Michel Roux got the sack (sic) for advertising potatoes but Brady can vote in line with tory legislation? 
 If having no opinion is a prerequisite of working for the BBC then there will be no members of staff left.  Lineker has made an opinion on a platform outside of his employer about a subjet he obviously has a strong emotional response to, on a subject that he isn't employed by the BBC to comment on, how does that affect his ability to discuss football?

This is they key point for me.
I tend to align with Risso on liking the BBC and i’d go further and think its a really important institution that would be missed if, as some in the Tory party would like, it went or fundamentally changed, and its goals of impartiality are an important aspect of it as an institution.
However, you highlight some key problems with this issue and the different standards in how Linekar is being treated, with the likes of Brady. I also find it hard to equate the impartiality of an organisation whose head, is more or less a donor to the Tory party and who must of had some role in the decision to stand Linekar down.

In its own way the action against Linekar is undermining its own goals of political impartiality.

However short lived, i like the fact theres been a bit of an ‘I’m spartacus’ amongst the well paid presenters and pundits to the not so well paid production staff.

But i do fear the Torys will see this as a win win, it deflects from their politicalisation of the migrant issue, whilst undermining the BBC at the same time. I struggle to understand anyone really disliking Linekar when he uses his privileged position to call these fuckers out for the horrible ultra right bastards they are.

[Risso]

Karren Brady isn’t a BBC presenter though, she’s merely part of an entertainment programme that the BBC pay for, made by an independent production company, so the same rules don’t apply.

[RamboandBruno]

Karren Brady isn’t a BBC presenter though, she’s merely part of an entertainment programme that the BBC pay for, made by an independent production company, so the same rules don’t apply.

And Linekar is a freelancer

[Risso]

Karren Brady isn’t a BBC presenter though, she’s merely part of an entertainment programme that the BBC pay for, made by an independent production company, so the same rules don’t apply.

And Linekar is a freelancer

Leaving aside his long standing dedication to avoiding paying his fair share of tax, the impartiality rules apply to presenters whether they’re directly employed or if they use a PSC.