Jug earred hypocritical virtue signaller

[Le Cynique]

Whilst I think Lineker is a dick, I don’t agree with any employer having any restriction on a persons freedom to use social media how they wish, within the laws of the country they reside / work

The caveats on that are a) posting during work time and b) posting about the employer and their business.

But what the employer also needs to understand is that the employee can also disagree to be used in their social media posts

I had a clause in my contract that I could be fined €2500 for posting negatively about the employer on social media (doesn’t include online generally). No problem with that. But I got them to also add that they can’t post about me either

I think that’s completely fair. If there’s a contract in place, it a) has to cut both ways and b) has to apply to everyone. It’s less the nature of the requirement that annoys me, it’s how it’s applied differently to different people.

 

[SwissBlade]

Most public servants have restrictions or consequences surrounding social media. Some have restrictions on political party membership or even unions. It’s not unusual for people to be sacked in the public sector (I know he’s a contractor by the way) for posts similar to his.
He’s got a right to have his opinions and in his role at his own companies can say what he wants as he suffers any commercial fallout that follows but essentially as an employee of a public funded entity my own opinion is that he should be conscious of the needs of that organisation when it comes to political impartiality. I know I’ve let loose the dogs of war about BBC impartiality but simply put that’s what they should have.

I think it’s a new world we’re in and we have to accept it, but it should be the corner stone of our freedoms of speech to be able to express opinions, political or otherwise in both day to day life or online without it affecting employment… I’m just not sure why people don’t object to it when they get their contract terms renewed.

 

[Le Cynique]

For me, it also centres around where a person’s platform comes from. For Lineker, it’s arguable that his BBC work gives him the platform he enjoys, and as the BBC are required to be impartial, it’s dangerous for him to then use that platform to espouse partisan views. I think that’s where the rub comes in for many.

 

[paidsy]

I think at this point it's pretty clear whatever he's doing it's calculated for his own reasons. Personal opinions of the BBC aside, as one of the faces of the beeb there is rightly more attention on what he is posting about, or not posting about. When you are working for any entity that is funded via public money you do unfortunately lose some freedoms. You cannot work for the impartial BBC funded by the public and then conduct yourself in a way that threatens that appearance of an impartial organisation.

In short, I think he's setting himself up for his next career move, whatever that may be.

 

[Yellarbellyblade]

I think it’s a new world we’re in and we have to accept it, but it should be the corner stone of our freedoms of speech to be able to express opinions, political or otherwise in both day to day life or online without it affecting employment… I’m just not sure why people don’t object to it when they get their contract terms renewed.

In private industry I think there’s maybe a difference but with a public body like it or not people conflate the views of individuals with that of the organisation itself. I know for a fact that police and other public bodies are banned from anything to do with the BNP or similar organisations. I don’t see an issue with that being banned but you could argue that that restricts their freedom of thought etc. Where do we draw the line?

 

[SwissBlade]

In private industry I think there’s maybe a difference but with a public body like it or not people conflate the views of individuals with that of the organisation itself. I know for a fact that police and other public bodies are banned from anything to do with the BNP or similar organisations. I don’t see an issue with that being banned but you could argue that that restricts their freedom of thought etc. Where do we draw the line?

Probably one for a different thread, but the people will still hold those views regardless of whether they’re allowed by their employer to post on social media or not… public or private sector doesn’t matter.

It really infringes on freedoms of speech to prevent people from posting on social media. I can see reasons of “protection” for preventing people showing biase in the likes of the police but perhaps that should also come down to the individuals discretion. You’d hope people smart enough to work in the public sector would understand consequences

 

[Yellarbellyblade]

Probably one for a different thread, but the people will still hold those views regardless of whether they’re allowed by their employer to post on social media or not… public or private sector doesn’t matter.

It really infringes on freedoms of speech to prevent people from posting on social media. I can see reasons of “protection” for preventing people showing biase in the likes of the police but perhaps that should also come down to the individuals discretion. You’d hope people smart enough to work in the public sector would understand consequences

Hmm evidence would not offer too much assurance of that.

 

[Piffle and Tosh]

Can I just shock you. I like Gary Lineker.

Just don't bother

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

I think that’s completely fair. If there’s a contract in place, it a) has to cut both ways and b) has to apply to everyone. It’s less the nature of the requirement that annoys me, it’s how it’s applied differently to different people.

He's not an employee though, he's a contractor, and HMRC would have things to say about his tax status, if he agreed to be bound by BBC's social media policy.

 

[Carlton Blade]

For me, it also centres around where a person’s platform comes from. For Lineker, it’s arguable that his BBC work gives him the platform he enjoys, and as the BBC are required to be impartial, it’s dangerous for him to then use that platform to espouse partisan views. I think that’s where the rub comes in for many.

I think the rub (for a large %) comes from what his views are, rather than the fact that he has them

 

[Gerritforud]

"He's not an employee though, he's a contractor"
For me this is key, a lot of posters here have spent a long time having a go at him, like he is some kind of representative for the BBC,
ergo a public service representative.
He is a free agent, like him or loath him, he is for filling his contract.
If you have a problem with his position, take it up with the BBC who chose to contract him in.
If you think he is a hypocrite for housing refugees, it's beyond me how we can discuss the subject. Other than say, if you don't want refugees here,
you must be a hypocrite for not stopping the wars that displace people, or buying a boat and heading out in the channel to meet them and ask them to return to their war torn homes.

 

[Le Cynique]

He's not an employee though, he's a contractor, and HMRC would have things to say about his tax status, if he agreed to be bound by BBC's social media policy.

Yeah, you’re wrong though.

Here’s the policy:

Guidance: Personal Use of Social Media

www.bbc.co.uk

MOTD is, as you’ll see, a Flagship Programme.

Note this bit:

The extent to which a non-staff member, contributor or presenter is required to comply with the Editorial Guidelines will be set out in the BBC’s contractual relationship with them.

His contract might have changed since I was there, but when I was, he was certainly bound by the social media policy (I worked closely with Ed Pol as I was creating some training for them).

Also, why do you think HMRC would have questions about his tax if he agreed to abide by a social media policy?

 

[Le Cynique]

I think the rub (for a large %) comes from what his views are, rather than the fact that he has them

I don’t disagree that there are a lot of people who dislike him for being overtly leftist. I was talking about why people within the corporation disliked him (and still do, according to the BBC Alumni group that I’m still a member of).

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

Yeah, you’re wrong though.

Here’s the policy:

Guidance: Personal Use of Social Media

www.bbc.co.uk

MOTD is, as you’ll see, a Flagship Programme.

Note this bit:



His contract might have changed since I was there, but when I was, he was certainly bound by the social media policy (I worked closely with Ed Pol as I was creating some training for them).

Also, why do you think HMRC would have questions about his tax if he agreed to abide by a social media policy?

Because he would then be under the control of the client, and therefore caught by IR35 rules.

 

[Carlton Blade]

I don’t disagree that there are a lot of people who dislike him for being overtly leftist. I was talking about why people within the corporation disliked him (and still do, according to the BBC Alumni group that I’m still a member of).

Apologies

 

[paidsy]

Yeah, you’re wrong though.

Here’s the policy:

Guidance: Personal Use of Social Media

www.bbc.co.uk

MOTD is, as you’ll see, a Flagship Programme.

Note this bit:



His contract might have changed since I was there, but when I was, he was certainly bound by the social media policy (I worked closely with Ed Pol as I was creating some training for them).

Also, why do you think HMRC would have questions about his tax if he agreed to abide by a social media policy?

HMRC shouldn't care about that given that sort of thing has brought about no issue for the dozens of contractors I do and have worked with in the private sector. All policies are applied equally.

 

[Le Cynique]

"He's not an employee though, he's a contractor"
For me this is key, a lot of posters here have spent a long time having a go at him, like he is some kind of representative for the BBC,
ergo a public service representative.
He is a free agent, like him or loath him, he is for filling his contract.
If you have a problem with his position, take it up with the BBC who chose to contract him in.
If you think he is a hypocrite for housing refugees, it's beyond me how we can discuss the subject. Other than say, if you don't want refugees here,
you must be a hypocrite for not stopping the wars that displace people, or buying a boat and heading out in the channel to meet them and ask them to return to their war torn homes.

Again, read my reply to KBN. It’s not about whether you see him as a representative or not. It’s that he presents a flagship BBC programme and the size and reach of his social media platform is based largely around the exposure that comes with that role. The rules say that he shouldn’t be partisan, but he is. Like Jonathan Agnew said, he’d be sacked if he spoke out like Lineker (and his reach and platform are much smaller). Regardless of his views (most of which I agree with anyway) he’s given leeway that other BBC people aren’t.

 

[Le Cynique]

Because he would then be under the control of the client, and therefore caught by IR35 rules.

Are you sure about that? In my last role, when we had freelancers working with certain clients we put them under an NDA that meant they couldn’t speak about working with them. That didn’t affect IR35 status.

 

[Carlton Blade]

Because he would then be under the control of the client, and therefore caught by IR35 rules.

Not if he's providing a service instead of labour

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

Not if he's providing a service instead of labour

No, that isn't a loophole.

 

[Le Cynique]

No, that isn't a loophole.

What do you make of this?

Gary Lineker wins six-year IR35 battle | Qdos

Gary Lineker wins his £4.9m tax case as Tribunal finds Lineker held direct relationship with clients, meaning IR35 couldn’t apply

www.qdoscontractor.com

 

[Carlton Blade]

No, that isn't a loophole.

No. It's an inherent part of how IR35 is structured. No loophole required.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

No. It's an inherent part of how IR35 is structured. No loophole required.

I've worked as a contractor outside IR35 providing a service for 10 years. Simply having a contract that says, my company is providing a service isn't good enough should Hector come calling. It appears Lineker has got some very good tax advice to structure his operations as a partnership and thus avoid IR35 entirely.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

What do you make of this?

Gary Lineker wins six-year IR35 battle | Qdos

Gary Lineker wins his £4.9m tax case as Tribunal finds Lineker held direct relationship with clients, meaning IR35 couldn’t apply

www.qdoscontractor.com

Ah ok, well that makes difference. He's not providing through a company so IR35 does not apply. Some good and no doubt expensive tax advice

 

[Carlton Blade]

I've worked as a contractor outside IR35 providing a service for 10 years. Simply having a contract that says, my company is providing a service isn't good enough should Hector come calling. It appears Lineker has got some very good tax advice to structure his operations as a partnership and thus avoid IR35 entirely.

I work for a company that specialises in ensuring all work is outside if IR35 regs. The specific terms of the contract matter.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

I work for a company that specialises in ensuring all work is outside if IR35 regs. The specific terms of the contract matter.

They do, but unless something has changed, so does your working practices.

In any case it turns out IR35 doesn't apply to Lineker, but if he was providing his services through a personal services company, and the contract with the client said the company's representative had to abide by the social media policy of the client, then I think HMRC would be very interested in that.

 

[Carlton Blade]

They do, but unless something has changed, so does your working practices.

In any case it turns out IR35 doesn't apply to Lineker, but if he was providing his services through a personal services company, and the contract with the client said the company's representative had to abide by the social media policy of the client, then I think HMRC would be very interested in that.

Sorry if that's what you said. I thought you were saying IR35 offered blanket coverage over individuals 'employed' by the service provider bringing the contract owner into disrepute

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

Sorry if that's what you said. I thought you were saying IR35 offered blanket coverage over individuals 'employed' by the service provider bringing the contract owner into disrepute

No, but poorly articulated by me, granted

 

[Rochdaleblade]

Seems a tad hypocritical from our public service broadcaster

 

[Le Cynique]

Seems a tad hypocritical from our public service broadcaster

This is not news. Those particular BBC employees wouldn’t be allowed to publicly join any march.

If the march were to take a turn where it became anti-Palestinian - which it could - they’d be on a very sticky wicket. It’s like the BLM protests - they were politicised by many different factions and ended up being far beyond mere anti-racism.

I don’t think that anyone could be censured for saying that anti-semitism is a bad thing. The difference here is joining a political protest that has the potential to go beyond the initial “anti-semitism is bad” idea.