BBC and lineker

[BillyStubbsTears]

Branton

You're REALLY doubling down?

Of COURSE he wasn't drawing similarities to those quotes. But those quotes didn't come out of nowhere. There was a path that ended up there. Starting with milder but still abhorrent nationalistic tropes. Like calling on the will of the people to be granted. Like calling opponents of policy disloyal to the nation. BOTH of those lines have been used this week by Bravernan and her supporters.

[Bentley Bullet]

The BBC (or, more correctly, it's senior management placemen from the heart of the Tory party) says Lineker has to be disciplined because its staff can't get involved in party political arguments.

This is what Sugar tweeted in the middle of the 2019 election campaign.



Not a word said to him.

By the way, that line from the BBC. That means that if we ever did get an authoritarian right or left wing Govt that tried to undermine legal democratic processes [1] the BBC would bothsides the issue.

[1] For the record, I think we are well on the way to having one now, and Braverman is a fascist-in-waiting, testing the waters here to see how society and its institutions react.

Which is why I back Lineker to the hilt.

YOU BACK LINEKER TO THE HILT BECAUSE HE SAID SOMETHING THAT SUITED YOUR POLITICAL AGENDA. HAD HE SAID SOMETHING AGAINST YOUR BELOVED LABOUR PARTY YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BACKED HIM.

Quite simple really, eh Billy lad!

I'm going to put hope over a decade of bitter experience and see if I can get you, just once, to engage like a grown up.

Do YOU think the BBC has been consistent in the way it dealt with Lineker, compared to Sugar, Neil and Clarkson?

Not really, Clarkson was sacked, Neill resigned, and Sugar didn't suggest Diane Abbott spoke like a nazi.

[Glyn_Wigley]

So Sugar was showing impartiality?

Best laugh I've had all day.

[Bessie Red]

If Lineker tweets from his own personal account rather than an official bbc account, he’s not representing the bbc.

If he tweets from a personal account criticising the bbc, that’s different and a potential problem.

Most organisations have rules against employees bringing them into disrepute - ie don’t misuse official media channels and don’t slag us off on your personal media.

What the hell has Lineker’s personally presented opinion on the refugees got to do with the bbc.?

As for the Nazi comparison, he did say he was comparing the language used, no mention at all of comparing the actual organisations.!!

Wrong - look at the BBC's specific rules on this type of thing. I have referred to them and the specifics around social media content which hopefully will help you to understand that what he did in the eyes of the BBC HR dept broke those rules and appropriate disciplinary action taken. Lineker obviously has the right to appeal against the ruling.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bessie.

Read the papers and the BBC's own reporting. It was the DG who dealt with Lineker. The chief executive. WAY above common or garden HR.

But the DG never got involved with Sugar, Neil or Clarkson. In fact, neither did HR.

[Branton Red]

Branton

You're REALLY doubling down?

Of COURSE he wasn't drawing similarities to those quotes. But those quotes didn't come out of nowhere. There was a path that ended up there. Starting with milder but still abhorrent nationalistic tropes. Like calling on the will of the people to be granted. Like calling opponents of policy disloyal to the nation. BOTH of those lines have been used this week by Bravernan and her supporters.

Oh I see when Lineker said "language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s” he meant the early/mid 30s when the Nazi's were publicly only a little bit nasty not the late 30s when their language and actions were totally violent and evil.

If only he'd pointed that out in his tweet eh? So glad you're here to point out what he really meant.

PS the Hitler quote was from Mein Kampf published in 1923 so your argument is not only nonsense but historically inaccurate. The Nazis were spreading and encouraging through language vile anti-antisemitism from their very inception. There is no equivalence here. None.

If you're going to make ridiculous broad-brush and inappropriate comparisons of the Nazis to the present day (or for reasons that should be beyond the wit of any reasonable person are defending such statements) you really can't go back and say well I was only referring to part of what Hitler and the Nazi's said.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

Hope 0-1 Experience.

I should have known...

Lineker has been disciplined not for doing what you said (which he didn't) but for speaking out on a politically sensitive topic.

Not for t**tting someone, like Clarkson did.

And he's not resigned to go to a better paid gig like Neil did.

Neither of thosr two were disciplined for their regular expression of opinions on controversial political issues.

Now.

Go and look at that Sugar tweet.

Do you think that qualifies as expressing an opinion on a controversial political topic?

[IDM]

If Lineker tweets from his own personal account rather than an official bbc account, he’s not representing the bbc.

If he tweets from a personal account criticising the bbc, that’s different and a potential problem.

Most organisations have rules against employees bringing them into disrepute - ie don’t misuse official media channels and don’t slag us off on your personal media.

What the hell has Lineker’s personally presented opinion on the refugees got to do with the bbc.?

As for the Nazi comparison, he did say he was comparing the language used, no mention at all of comparing the actual organisations.!!

Wrong - look at the BBC's specific rules on this type of thing. I have referred to them and the specifics around social media content which hopefully will help you to understand that what he did in the eyes of the BBC HR dept broke those rules and appropriate disciplinary action taken. Lineker obviously has the right to appeal against the ruling.

Sorry I disagree - if he was tweeting as a bbc employee/contractor rather than as a private individual, you have a point - otherwise free speech is being stifled.

[ravenrover]

Funny how after the  the likes of Cruella kicked a fuss up about it action was taken by the Beeb,at that point the indignation became nothing to do with us it's all up to the Beeb to sort out

[glosterred]

From Paul Embery a former union leader

Of course Lineker shouldn't be sacked. But the issue is a bit more complex than some suggest. Imagine, say, a Corbyn-led government had been elected and a senior BBC presenter warned that antisemitism had triumphed and the UK was now like Nazi Germany. What might the reaction be?
The point isn't whether that presenter was justified in his/her statement, any more than Lineker was justified in his. The point is whether such a contentious statement by a major BBC figure would conflict with the Charter requirement on impartiality. That is a complex question.

As he says a complex question. What would people on here be saying if what he said had happened?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Branton

There's a spectrum.

Fascism gains acceptance and responsibility by worming concepts into people's heads

Dehumanisation of "The Other" - e.g. saying we are being invaded by illegal aliens

Delegitimising of dissent - e.g. saying that the leftwing activist "blob" were being disloyal to the nation.

Calling on some mythical national will to take precedence over legal obligations.

All those methods were used in Germany in the early days of Hitler's ascent. All of them were used in the past few weeks by Braverman.

You choose two examples. I e from when Hitler was a nobody, a raving street fighter, a minor joke figure, before he realised he needed to couch his ideas in the sort of language I give examples of above. The other after fascism had triumphed and was out in the open.

You don't actually think that the German people in the 1930s woke up one morning and said "Right. Time to clear out the untermensch" do you?

That came from a decade of ground laying. If normalising the tropes in the examples I give above.

[BillyStubbsTears]

"Imagine, say, a Corbyn-led government had been elected and a senior BBC presenter warned that antisemitism had triumphed and the UK was now like Nazi Germany"

Jesus, the way the ante gets raised...

Why do people do that?

[IDM]

From Paul Embery a former union leader

Of course Lineker shouldn't be sacked. But the issue is a bit more complex than some suggest. Imagine, say, a Corbyn-led government had been elected and a senior BBC presenter warned that antisemitism had triumphed and the UK was now like Nazi Germany. What might the reaction be?
The point isn't whether that presenter was justified in his/her statement, any more than Lineker was justified in his. The point is whether such a contentious statement by a major BBC figure would conflict with the Charter requirement on impartiality. That is a complex question.

As he says a complex question. What would people on here be saying if what he said had happened?

To me it’s much more simple.  If you tweet as a representative of an organisation then you need to be wary of what you say.  What you say as a private individual is of no concern to that organisation, unless you are bad-mouthing it.

[glosterred]

"Imagine, say, a Corbyn-led government had been elected and a senior BBC presenter warned that antisemitism had triumphed and the UK was now like Nazi Germany"

Jesus, the way the ante gets raised...

Why do people do that?

What might be the reaction if it had been said, would you and others backing Lineker be equal in their backing of the presenter under freedom of speech?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Glos

That is nothing remotely like what Lineker said.

So it would be a stupid thing to say.

What Embery is doing here is precisely what Embery does. Exaggerating every Culture War battle line to keep angry people angry.

[Spud]

Ah great, politics has spread to the main board now, can this be moved to off topic with the rest of it please?

[normal rules]

Not a peep from anyone on here about the possible “other” motivation that Lineker might have for appearing to be so “independent” from the BBC.
I refer of course to his current tax issue with the HMRC. All 4.9 million pounds of it. Around one fifth of his estimated wealth.
I’d say that would be a pretty big motivator for him.

[DonnyOsmond]

BBC is wrong on this one imo. Even if your a gammon and pineapple type and love the nonsense Braverman comes out with what does it matter what Lineker says on his personal twitter feeds?

BBC needs to be politically neutral but it’s not like he did it on air or is a political correspondent. His personal opinions have no bearing on how he does his job like it might other roles.

Frankly the government at the moment are a shambles and the BBC seem to give them a easy ride.

This is why he has been suspended
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/
and
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/conflicts-of-interest
He cannot tweet comments that break their impartiality and conflict of interests rules and not be expected to be disciplined. It is not a matter of free speech but a matter of breaking BBC rules. He can say what he like on twitter if he resigns from his BBC position.

The impartiality rules apply to political commentators or newscasters. The host of Cbeebies doesn't have to adhere to impartiality rules outside the office and the same applies to Lineker, who is also exempt from some rules because he is technically a freelancer.

Wrong. Read them again and note the following specifics:
"Staff, presenters & others who contribute to our output" - Section 14 - Impartiality
"A potential conflict of interest arises when there is a possibility that an individual’s external activities may affect or be reasonably perceived as affecting BBC's impartiality " - Section 15 - Conflict of interests
"The requirement extends to freelance presenters " - Section 15 - Conflict of interests
The final decision regarding disciplinary action rests solely with BBC's HR dept. not me, you or any politicians.

Public Expressions of Opinion
15.3.13 Where individuals identify themselves as being linked with the BBC, or are programme makers, editorial staff, reporters or presenters primarily associated with the BBC, their public expressions of opinion have the potential to compromise the BBC’s impartiality and to damage its reputation. This includes the use of social media and writing letters to the press. Opinions expressed on social media are put into the public domain, can be shared and are searchable.

(See Guidance: Social Media)

The risk is greater where the public expressions of opinion overlap with the area of the individual’s work. The risk is lower where an individual is expressing views publicly on an unrelated area, for example, a sports or science presenter expressing views on politics or the arts.

[Bessie Red]

If Lineker tweets from his own personal account rather than an official bbc account, he’s not representing the bbc.

If he tweets from a personal account criticising the bbc, that’s different and a potential problem.

Most organisations have rules against employees bringing them into disrepute - ie don’t misuse official media channels and don’t slag us off on your personal media.

What the hell has Lineker’s personally presented opinion on the refugees got to do with the bbc.?

As for the Nazi comparison, he did say he was comparing the language used, no mention at all of comparing the actual organisations.!!

Wrong - look at the BBC's specific rules on this type of thing. I have referred to them and the specifics around social media content which hopefully will help you to understand that what he did in the eyes of the BBC HR dept broke those rules and appropriate disciplinary action taken. Lineker obviously has the right to appeal against the ruling.

Sorry I disagree - if he was tweeting as a bbc employee/contractor rather than as a private individual, you have a point - otherwise free speech is being stifled.

You may well disagree but those are the BBC rules and Lineker is contracted to work for the BBC. It is common within the public sector that there are rules about use of private social media channels and content that should not be put on them by individuals employed by said public sector body.

[Bessie Red]

Bessie.

Read the papers and the BBC's own reporting. It was the DG who dealt with Lineker. The chief executive. WAY above common or garden HR.

But the DG never got involved with Sugar, Neil or Clarkson. In fact, neither did HR.

He may well have done but are you seriously implying that the DG did not talk to the HR director first to see what his options were before "dealing" with Lineker.

[IDM]

If Lineker tweets from his own personal account rather than an official bbc account, he’s not representing the bbc.

If he tweets from a personal account criticising the bbc, that’s different and a potential problem.

Most organisations have rules against employees bringing them into disrepute - ie don’t misuse official media channels and don’t slag us off on your personal media.

What the hell has Lineker’s personally presented opinion on the refugees got to do with the bbc.?

As for the Nazi comparison, he did say he was comparing the language used, no mention at all of comparing the actual organisations.!!

Wrong - look at the BBC's specific rules on this type of thing. I have referred to them and the specifics around social media content which hopefully will help you to understand that what he did in the eyes of the BBC HR dept broke those rules and appropriate disciplinary action taken. Lineker obviously has the right to appeal against the ruling.

Sorry I disagree - if he was tweeting as a bbc employee/contractor rather than as a private individual, you have a point - otherwise free speech is being stifled.

You may well disagree but those are the BBC rules and Lineker is contracted to work for the BBC. It is common within the public sector that there are rules about use of private social media channels and content that should not be put on them by individuals employed by said public sector body.

I refer you to the last part of DO’s post above.

[coventryrover]

Gary Lineker regularly makes political comments on Twitter. He's not been suspended previously.

He's been suspended specifically for stating "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.”

Giving political opinions is one thing.

Comparing current day UK politicians or institutions to the Nazis in Germany is quite another.

Being confronted about the appropriateness of making such a statement and then refusing to apologies over it is quite another thing again.

Struggling to see how anyone can have any sympathy for the man let alone defend him.

Perhaps some on here need to take a lesson in history.

Perhaps it's yourself who needs the lesson in history .

Control of the media , the right wing press and other media platforms allowed to spew any kind of comment that dehumanises vulnerable people in order to divert attention away from their own failings .

Anyone opposing them is shut down whilst they continue to go to to work on Mick Lynch , the nurses , benefit claimants and immigrants .

That was 1930's Germany where everything was blamed on the Jews.

Almost anything and anybody  to try and divide and conquer in order to keep things in the UK just the way they are and the system ultimately weighed heavily towards wealth and keeping their power .

You sir have fallen for their bile , lock , stock and barrel .

Does the immigration situation need a solution , yes it does .

Clearly you haven't worked out that the present UK government doesn't want a solution and their present policies are unworkable because it doesn't suit them to have a solution  for the very reasons I've explained .

   This.....

[Bessie Red]

If Lineker tweets from his own personal account rather than an official bbc account, he’s not representing the bbc.

If he tweets from a personal account criticising the bbc, that’s different and a potential problem.

Most organisations have rules against employees bringing them into disrepute - ie don’t misuse official media channels and don’t slag us off on your personal media.

What the hell has Lineker’s personally presented opinion on the refugees got to do with the bbc.?

As for the Nazi comparison, he did say he was comparing the language used, no mention at all of comparing the actual organisations.!!

Wrong - look at the BBC's specific rules on this type of thing. I have referred to them and the specifics around social media content which hopefully will help you to understand that what he did in the eyes of the BBC HR dept broke those rules and appropriate disciplinary action taken. Lineker obviously has the right to appeal against the ruling.

Sorry I disagree - if he was tweeting as a bbc employee/contractor rather than as a private individual, you have a point - otherwise free speech is being stifled.

You may well disagree but those are the BBC rules and Lineker is contracted to work for the BBC. It is common within the public sector that there are rules about use of private social media channels and content that should not be put on them by individuals employed by said public sector body.

I refer you to the last part of DO’s post above.

Irrelevant if you care to take the time to read the actual words in the BBC's own rules! I know it seems daft but public sector rules sometimes our daft however they need to be able to defend their position if/when criticised by the public. Often it is more about perceived acts of impartiality & conflicts of interest than actual ones!

[IDM]

It makes sense that they have to be impartial when representing the bbc.

When does this representation stop?

It could be argued that Lineker’s “standing” and, as such, influence on social media relates more to his football career than his presence on the bbc?

[sedwardsdrfc]

The thing I’m seeing from people supporting the BBC is essentially you can be as impartial as you like so long as you don’t reference 1930s Germany. Never mind that the comparison IN LANGUAGE is pretty factual and is a point that was made by Jewish groups before Lineker. Why should anyone be silenced from factual reporting!?

So Gary could have stuck vote labour signs all over his twitter and it’d be fine? No chance! the BBC would have gone after him .

Stop hiding behind the letter of stupid guidelines and use your own moral compass to guide you. If you have to hide behind the letter of guidelines it suggests deep down you know something isn’t right.

[ncRover]

The left think the bbc is right wing and the right think it’s left wing. Always have done.
I don’t particularly like the bbc and couldn’t care less about Linekar but it must be doing something for balance to achieve this.

This may be the most important discussion in the UK atm, freedom of the press and the media, there are certainly questions to be answered about why some can offer their views and others cannot. Independence of the bbc from government interference, any government is vital.

Abolish the license fee and make it stand on its own 2 feet as a private company? Or in some other vague way?

You're just muddying the waters nc, the detail about what was said or how independence is achieved is secondary to a government controlled media.

Do you think we need a state broadcaster?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bessie.

Surely the ultimate conflict of interest at the BBC is that the boss of the man who told Lineker to step down is a Tory donor who bailed out our man-child PM just before he got this job?

Bigger conflict than anything to do with Lineker by orders of magnitude.

I wonder what HR reckon to that?

[BillyStubbsTears]

The left think the bbc is right wing and the right think it’s left wing. Always have done.
I don’t particularly like the bbc and couldn’t care less about Linekar but it must be doing something for balance to achieve this.

This may be the most important discussion in the UK atm, freedom of the press and the media, there are certainly questions to be answered about why some can offer their views and others cannot. Independence of the bbc from government interference, any government is vital.

Abolish the license fee and make it stand on its own 2 feet as a private company? Or in some other vague way?

You're just muddying the waters nc, the detail about what was said or how independence is achieved is secondary to a government controlled media.

Do you think we need a state broadcaster?

Well, of course our leading broadcast companies could be owned by a Berlusconi or a Murdoch...

The BBC model works superbly, IF it has a reasonable political balance in senior management.

That's the core of what has gone wrong here.

A politically unbalanced leadership has insisted that it should bothsides everything.

Bothsidesism doesn't give balance. It gives a massive advantage to the side in politics that wants to push the rules to breaking point.

[ncRover]

The left think the bbc is right wing and the right think it’s left wing. Always have done.
I don’t particularly like the bbc and couldn’t care less about Linekar but it must be doing something for balance to achieve this.

This may be the most important discussion in the UK atm, freedom of the press and the media, there are certainly questions to be answered about why some can offer their views and others cannot. Independence of the bbc from government interference, any government is vital.

Abolish the license fee and make it stand on its own 2 feet as a private company? Or in some other vague way?

You're just muddying the waters nc, the detail about what was said or how independence is achieved is secondary to a government controlled media.

Do you think we need a state broadcaster?

Well, of course our leading broadcast companies could be owned by a Berlusconi or a Murdoch...

The BBC model works superbly, IF it has a reasonable political balance in senior management.

That's the core of what has gone wrong here.

A politically unbalanced leadership has insisted that it should bothsides everything.

Bothsidesism doesn't give balance. It gives a massive advantage to the side in politics that wants to push the rules to breaking point.

Do ITV / Channel 4 have a political bias?

[sedwardsdrfc]

Look at the state of American broadcasting if you think we are better with only partial instead of mostly impartial media.

BBC needs defending it does a pretty good for something so big the corruption at the top needs stamping out. But that’s just a reflection of our current government so I don’t think will change for 18 months