5 ms·

Sounds like a dictatorship, hang on didn’t they remove the sport presenter because he voice that the asylum policy is a disaster

jonp888 4y ago
They weren't used by the government. They were used by individuals to hide information about themselves - usually adultery. The BBC suspended Gary Lineker for a couple of day's. They were massively criticisdd and he is back on air now.
- blitzar 4y ago
  The BBC suspended Gary Lineker for a couple of day's, at the behest of the government for voicing his opinion on government policy. They subsequently appologised and he is back on air now.
- barrysteve 4y ago
  The US has effectively similar laws. They can silence whistleblowers and troublemakers with National Security laws. Ladar Levison suffered under one and couldn't even tell his wife that he was getting sued by the government for hosting an encrypted mail service that Snowden used.
okeuro49 4y ago
The BBC is funded by the taxpayer, who rightfully expect impartiality from their presenters. The sports presenter's comments raised questions on impartiality rules. You can have any opinion you like, but if you're getting a large wage from an institution funded by the taxpayer, you can't use the platform like your own personal soapbox.
- Cymrukicks 4y ago
  Except he didn't, he used his own personal twitter account. He is a contractor and there were a variety of previous presenters who did the same thing (eg. Alan Sugar vs Corbyn). Only they didn't criticise the government as Gary did and the BBC board is stacked with members of the Tory Party including the chair who arranged a finance for the previous Primeminister while applying for the role of Chair. It was a clear case of goverment interference using the impartiality rules, only the conversation around impartiality went right above Gary to the powers that be immediately after his removal which is why he is back.
  - okeuro49 4y ago
    > Except he didn't, he used his own personal twitter account. The BBC's impartiality rules cover this. > Personal Activity > Expressions of Opinion on Social Media > 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 activities on social media have the potential to compromise the BBC’s impartiality and to damage its reputation. > Our audiences must be able to trust the integrity of BBC programmes and services and be confident that the outside activities of our presenters, programme makers and other staff do not undermine the BBC's impartiality or reputation or that their editorial decisions are not perceived to be influenced by any commercial or personal interests. > They should not: > state or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party > express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
    - cjrp 4y ago
      Read the introduction: > This guidance note is intended to help BBC staff operate appropriately in every aspect of their activities on social media He isn't BBC staff.
      - okeuro49 4y ago
        > He isn't BBC staff. That's not a fait accompli, and is why this situation arose: > Do the policies apply to Lineker? The answer is yes. The policies apply to everyone who works for the BBC. https://www.russells.co.uk/own-goal-for-bbc-with-gary-lineker/ https://www.russells.co.uk/own-goal-for-bbc-with-gary-lineke... > “I think there’s quite a lot of confusion about the extent to which the impartiality guidelines extend outside of news and extend to freelancers rather than staff, and until that’s cleared up we’re going to go on having these kinds of (problems).” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/gary-lineker-bbc-confusion-sky-news-richard-osman-b2298475.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/gary-lineker-bbc-confu... The public face of the BBC is not affected by whether or not the person is a permanent employee, but rather how prominent that person is in the organisation. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
- andyjohnson0 4y ago
  > The BBC is funded by the taxpayer, who rightfully expect impartiality from their presenters. This BBC is not funded by taxation. It's funded by a subscription paid by owners of TV reception equipment. Some people who pay the licence fee also pay taxes, but some don't. > you can't use the platform like your own personal soapbox. Lineker didn't express his opinion on the BBC's platform. He used his personal account on Twitter, which is clearly separate from the BBC. Whether licence-fee payers expect BBC sports presenters to refrain from expressing political opinions outside of their work for the BBC is debatable - as far as I know, nobody has consulted them in a systematic way.
  - okeuro49 4y ago
    > It's funded by a subscription paid by owners of TV reception equipment. Netflix is funded by a subscription paid by owners of TV reception equipment. The BBC is funded by a mandatory licence, i.e. a tax. > Lineker didn't express his opinion on the BBC's platform. He used his personal account on Twitter, which is clearly separate from the BBC Not according to the policy that Lineker agreed to, in order to work at the BBC. > Personal Activity > Disclaimers written in biographies such as ‘my views not the BBC’s’ provide no defence against personal expressions of opinion on social media that may conflict with BBC guidelines. > They should not: > express support for any political party express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/social-media/ https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/social-medi...
    - thirdvect0r 4y ago
      You conveniently ignore the fact that the guidelines you quote are specifically regarding "Individuals involved in the production or presentation of any output in News or other factual areas that regularly deal with a range of public policy issues" Football commentators are not such individuals.
      - okeuro49 4y ago
        Read further > There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters. Having such a public face of the BBC hyperbolically compare government policy to those of the Nazis in 1930s Germany is inappropriate.

jonp888 4y ago

They weren't used by the government. They were used by individuals to hide information about themselves - usually adultery. The BBC suspended Gary Lineker for a couple of day's. They were massively criticisdd and he is back on air now.

blitzar 4y ago
The BBC suspended Gary Lineker for a couple of day's, at the behest of the government for voicing his opinion on government policy. They subsequently appologised and he is back on air now.
barrysteve 4y ago
The US has effectively similar laws. They can silence whistleblowers and troublemakers with National Security laws. Ladar Levison suffered under one and couldn't even tell his wife that he was getting sued by the government for hosting an encrypted mail service that Snowden used.

okeuro49 4y ago

The BBC is funded by the taxpayer, who rightfully expect impartiality from their presenters. The sports presenter's comments raised questions on impartiality rules. You can have any opinion you like, but if you're getting a large wage from an institution funded by the taxpayer, you can't use the platform like your own personal soapbox.

Cymrukicks 4y ago
Except he didn't, he used his own personal twitter account. He is a contractor and there were a variety of previous presenters who did the same thing (eg. Alan Sugar vs Corbyn). Only they didn't criticise the government as Gary did and the BBC board is stacked with members of the Tory Party including the chair who arranged a finance for the previous Primeminister while applying for the role of Chair. It was a clear case of goverment interference using the impartiality rules, only the conversation around impartiality went right above Gary to the powers that be immediately after his removal which is why he is back.
- okeuro49 4y ago
  > Except he didn't, he used his own personal twitter account. The BBC's impartiality rules cover this. > Personal Activity > Expressions of Opinion on Social Media > 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 activities on social media have the potential to compromise the BBC’s impartiality and to damage its reputation. > Our audiences must be able to trust the integrity of BBC programmes and services and be confident that the outside activities of our presenters, programme makers and other staff do not undermine the BBC's impartiality or reputation or that their editorial decisions are not perceived to be influenced by any commercial or personal interests. > They should not: > state or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party > express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
  - cjrp 4y ago
    Read the introduction: > This guidance note is intended to help BBC staff operate appropriately in every aspect of their activities on social media He isn't BBC staff.
    - okeuro49 4y ago
      > He isn't BBC staff. That's not a fait accompli, and is why this situation arose: > Do the policies apply to Lineker? The answer is yes. The policies apply to everyone who works for the BBC. https://www.russells.co.uk/own-goal-for-bbc-with-gary-lineker/ https://www.russells.co.uk/own-goal-for-bbc-with-gary-lineke... > “I think there’s quite a lot of confusion about the extent to which the impartiality guidelines extend outside of news and extend to freelancers rather than staff, and until that’s cleared up we’re going to go on having these kinds of (problems).” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/gary-lineker-bbc-confusion-sky-news-richard-osman-b2298475.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/gary-lineker-bbc-confu... The public face of the BBC is not affected by whether or not the person is a permanent employee, but rather how prominent that person is in the organisation. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
andyjohnson0 4y ago
> The BBC is funded by the taxpayer, who rightfully expect impartiality from their presenters. This BBC is not funded by taxation. It's funded by a subscription paid by owners of TV reception equipment. Some people who pay the licence fee also pay taxes, but some don't. > you can't use the platform like your own personal soapbox. Lineker didn't express his opinion on the BBC's platform. He used his personal account on Twitter, which is clearly separate from the BBC. Whether licence-fee payers expect BBC sports presenters to refrain from expressing political opinions outside of their work for the BBC is debatable - as far as I know, nobody has consulted them in a systematic way.
- okeuro49 4y ago
  > It's funded by a subscription paid by owners of TV reception equipment. Netflix is funded by a subscription paid by owners of TV reception equipment. The BBC is funded by a mandatory licence, i.e. a tax. > Lineker didn't express his opinion on the BBC's platform. He used his personal account on Twitter, which is clearly separate from the BBC Not according to the policy that Lineker agreed to, in order to work at the BBC. > Personal Activity > Disclaimers written in biographies such as ‘my views not the BBC’s’ provide no defence against personal expressions of opinion on social media that may conflict with BBC guidelines. > They should not: > express support for any political party express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/social-media/ https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/social-medi...
  - thirdvect0r 4y ago
    You conveniently ignore the fact that the guidelines you quote are specifically regarding "Individuals involved in the production or presentation of any output in News or other factual areas that regularly deal with a range of public policy issues" Football commentators are not such individuals.
    - okeuro49 4y ago
      Read further > There are also others who are not journalists or involved in factual programming who nevertheless have an additional responsibility to the BBC because of their profile on the BBC. We expect these individuals to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters. Having such a public face of the BBC hyperbolically compare government policy to those of the Nazis in 1930s Germany is inappropriate.