In todays news...

[Potter]

It's painful to see some of you struggling along, it really is.

This isn't about whether Gary Linker has freedom of speech, this is about whether Gary Linker Ltd (a company that broadcasts sports news for the BBC), is in breach of it's employment T&Cs and social media policy - which presumably (I haven't read it) says that he should not take a political position and make statements on it.

It would have been the same if Gary Lineker Ltd had told people to go out and defend statues against Marxists that want to tear them down. Gary Lineker Ltd, the sports broadcasting company, by agreement, is not supposed to do that.

The BBC may now have to part ways with Gary Lineker Ltd because it has breached it's employment contract, and no one wanted that.

[FWIW I like Lineker and at least he stands behind what he believes and takes refugees into his home, but he's broken the rules that he signed up to.
We've already got a simpleton army rushing around calling people Nazis, if the BBC don't make a stand and at least try to adhere to impartiality then you might get Jim Davidson on MOTD suggesting to be a bit racist and then you've got an opposing force doing some damage somewhere]

[DefTrap]

Seems strange that the beeb suddenly get a conscience about what is or isn't politically contraversial. I'd be fine with Jim Davidson on the telly spouting his nonsense, keep him out in the open where we can see him, rather than all bitter and twisted in the world of his little insidious podcast. If that's what it takes so that the redcheeked Tory its-not-fair crowd don't feel the need to start clawing away at the likes of Lineker ....

[Potter]

Oh well, fair enough, I remember when you all came out to defend Matt Le Tissier's freedom of speech because he compared wearing masks during covid to the Holocaust (IIRC Twitter banned him, or at least removed his tweets). And god bless you for turning a blind eye to Lineker taking a kings ransom for going to the world cup in a place most people were dying to condemn.

It seems that principles are only principles when they suit.

[DefTrap]

I probably would've defended Le Tissiers right to free speech, like I said, keep them out in the open. I don't recall much about it, for or against. Did "all you lot" vocally condemn him them? I must have missed it.

Initially I was keen for some sort of Qatar WC boycott, but in the end what does that achieve? Two minutes of headlines and then everyone forgets about it. Better maybe to deal with it and take the frequent opportunity to point out live on air what a farce it all is - which Lineker actually did.

[Potter]

I probably would've defended Le Tissiers right to free speech, like I said, keep them out in the open. I don't recall much about it...

I'm surprised you remember it at all, he was cancelled, removed from view and hounded out of his job in the media and his ambassador status after giving his whole professional career to Southampton, etc.
It was administered scorched earth and he's gone.

As it happens I agree more with Lineker than Le Tissier, but if we're championing free speech then Le Tissier was burned to the ground because he dared to exercise it.

This is exactly why the unwashed public on social media shouldn't get to decide whether it's ok for Mr Lineker to be a bit racy with his political comments, they're fundamentally unqualified to understand or decide on it. And it's why I threw open the challenge at the start of all this - if you're going to parrot political ideology that seems to resonate with you then make the effort to try and understand it before you clutch it to your chest and love it completely.

It's kind of poetic that if people had done this in 1930's Germany then Hitler might not have been so successful.

[wheelnut]

This isn't about whether Gary Linker has freedom of speech, this is about whether Gary Linker Ltd (a company that broadcasts sports news for the BBC), is in breach of it's employment T&Cs and social media policy - which presumably (I haven't read it) says that he should not take a political position and make statements on it.

I haven’t read the rest of the comments, but the point is, when he’s commenting on Twitter, is it Gary Lineker ltd commenting or simply Gary Lineker.

If there is a clause in his contract preventing him making a political observation on SM then I’m not sure it would be a legally enforceable clause.

I saw Alistair Campbell interviewed on the subject by the BBC, and the interviewer opened the interview by stating that viewers should be aware that Campbell has a business connection to Lineker as Lineker part owns the company that produces Campbell’s podcasts.

Campbell bristled at the this and asked the interviewer if the BBC qualified every political interview with the fact that the BBC chairman is a large Tory donor and has loaned a former PM 800k.

[Mr Moofo]

The issue is that the BBC is meant to be impartial. It’s not - and ultimately I don’t care about that. I just shouldn’t be forced to have to pay for its services.
If it’s talent want to express their views - which more and more are anti Tory, then it shouldnt be publicly funded

It all comes down to Linekars contract with the BBC . They have asked him to reign in his political comments. He hasn’t. It’s his choice to break the contract.

But it has become a dicks out , battle of egos

[Potter]

If the BBC Chairman or Alistair Campbell told me it was daytime then I'd look out of the window to check.

There are reasonable points on both sides.
It's not being discussed by reasonable people though.

[wheelnut]

It all comes down to Linekars contract with the BBC . They have asked him to reign in his political comments. He hasn’t. It’s his choice to break the contract.

The official line is that ‘he has stepped back from presenting while they reach an agreement on his social media use’

That perhaps indicates that there isn’t a current clear agreement in place regarding what he says on Twitter. It may also indicate that the BBC are aware that they may struggle to dictate to him what he says on Twitter (outside of illegal comments) and any restrictions moving forward would have to be by mutual agreement.

[JackyJoll]

Could be big viewing figures for Match of the Day tonight.

And low costs!

[Ant]

Lowering costs, they'll have to do something as the majority of the public aren't tolerating the looney left wing nutty dribble any longer. People are cancelling their TV licences, go woke, go broke.

[Potter]

I heard Matt Le Tissier isn't busy, and I'm sure he'd love the freedom to spout some of his political views on the BBC
Anyone that says otherwise is a Nazi psychopath.

Freedom of speech innit.

[Horse]

It all comes down to Linekars contract with the BBC . They have asked him to reign in his political comments. He hasn’t. It’s his choice to break the contract.

The official line is that ‘he has stepped back from presenting while they reach an agreement on his social media use’

That perhaps indicates that there isn’t a current clear agreement in place regarding what he says on Twitter.

Surely the point is that BBC presenters are constrained by their contract

Yes, you can have free speech, but there may be consequences.

I've only seen a statement from the BBC that "The BBC said it considered Lineker's "recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines"."

From a quick search, I can't find anything about personal views that are not part of editorial control etc.

Any idea what/how he breached them? And guidelines are not rules. But biting the hand that feeds is not to be taken lightly.

Similar to an earlier example, I'm allowed to post anything on social media as long as I've made it clear that they're my views, not my employer's.

But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to be 'open'. Although I use LinkedIn, I'm careful about content. And I stopped writing my blog.

[DefTrap]

I heard Matt Le Tissier isn't busy, and I'm sure he'd love the freedom to spout some of his political views on the BBC
Anyone that says otherwise is a Nazi psychopath.

Freedom of speech innit.

Shedload of solidarity coming out for Lineker. Like I said, he made 'political statements' on the telly box during the world cup, which apparently was fine. The beeb need to be a bit more consistent because at the moment it's starting to smell a bit fishy

[irie]

Apparently he called the UK government worse than Nazi Germany.

Anyone else would have been sacked. Instantly.

No he didn't

immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s".

So basically the same thing but in different words.

In any case, my understanding is that Lineker is a "contractor", a position that HMRC dispute and are pursuing him for ~£4.9m unpaid taxes. Would be interesting to see that contract if only to see if it mentions anything about not bringing the BBC into disrepute, which may be unlikely given the length of time he has been employed by/a contractor to the BBC.

Perhaps what Lineker really wants is to leave the BBC but have it indemnify him against any HMRC claims for unpaid taxes. Would be a nice £4.9m earner.

Edit: sp - Lineker

[demographic]

On the bright side, it looks like Richard Sharp will be hoisted by his own petard with no possible argument.

[Mr Moofo]

I would assume that the tax battle ( He claims self employed, HMRC claim at a huge % of this work is for one employer - so he is employed) is behind GL trying to get dismissed from the BBC. He knows exactly what he is doing

[G.P]

It's painful to see some of you struggling along, it really is.

This isn't about whether Gary Linker has freedom of speech, this is about whether Gary Linker Ltd (a company that broadcasts sports news for the BBC), is in breach of it's employment T&Cs and social media policy - which presumably (I haven't read it) says that he should not take a political position and make statements on it.

It would have been the same if Gary Lineker Ltd had told people to go out and defend statues against Marxists that want to tear them down. Gary Lineker Ltd, the sports broadcasting company, by agreement, is not supposed to do that.

The BBC may now have to part ways with Gary Lineker Ltd because it has breached it's employment contract, and no one wanted that.

[FWIW I like Lineker and at least he stands behind what he believes and takes refugees into his home, but he's broken the rules that he signed up to.
We've already got a simpleton army rushing around calling people Nazis, if the BBC don't make a stand and at least try to adhere to impartiality then you might get Jim Davidson on MOTD suggesting to be a bit racist and then you've got an opposing force doing some damage somewhere]

The point is that there are different contracts between BBC and entities like Lineker Ltd and Political correspondents on PAYE employment contracts.

Greg Dyke commented on it this morning - his view was that the lines (clauses) are not drawn clearly enough for the various different contractors and that the BBC (ironically) decided to bow to Govt pressure and remove Lineker form MOTD (Instead of putting out a statement saying that ambiguity in the rules needed addressing and a full review would take place).

[Potter]

I would assume that the tax battle ( He claims self employed, HMRC claim at a huge % of this work is for one employer - so he is employed) is behind GL trying to get dismissed from the BBC. He knows exactly what he is doing

Isn't that counterproductive? If he gets sacked by them then it's clear he worked for them.
Surely it's better if the BBC steps back, takes no action and calls him a contractor and says they're not responsible for what he says and he's his own man?

This 'suspension' by his 'employer' could cost him £5m.

Personally I reckon he wishes he'd kept his mouth shut.

[Mr Moofo]

Do you not think that is what he trying to precipitate?