I think you misunderstand freedom of speech, it applies to everyone, regardless, not just for people you like .
swerved it again. There were two questions in the post you didnt answer both. if you answered second you might show that complete freedom of speech in an institution like the BBC cant apply and its not absolute. so as freedom of speech is a nailed on 110% absolute to you?? the BBC should have no zero impartiality? thats the sketch they can all say what they want regardless and we the tax payer have nada choice but to pay for them???
I do not recall what it says, its not the type of thing that gets discussed in my house, but If you look at the human rights act that is incorrect.
The BBC as an organisation has to be impartial, that doesn’t mean individuals within it can’t have freedom of speech. For Anyone who works in the News department of the BBC, that’s a challenge, because even as individuals they have to be impartial and seen to be impartial. Also the senior management team have to be impartial because they are responsible for both the day to day running, and planning the future direction. However as GL is neither of those and only presents a sports program there isn’t the need for him to be politically impartial, unless of course he uses his access to the BBC to advocate his political views, which he hasn’t. I’m not quite sure about your point in regards to tax payers money. I maybe wrong but isn’t the BBC paid for by the licence fee, but regardless many institutions are payed for out of the tax system, that’s got nothing to do with freedom of speech.or impartiality
I do not understand your post. The thread is about Gary Lineker. He is not just only people like you. Gary Lineker is a major presenter on a state run broadcaster with a commitment to impartiality funded by the licence payer.
I did not understand your post either, are you suggesting that because he is a sports presenter on the BBC he shouldn’t be allowed freedom of speech. To correct you the BBC is NOT. a state run broadcaster, it’s independent. Russia has a state run broadcaster we don’t. It’s a really important point the BBC is most definitely Not state run.
Not getting involved with your debate with Cliftonville Ashton but isn’t the BBC funded by the TV licence fee - and to not pay it is an offence and punishable by law? Doesn’t that make it state run?
Free speech! .. it exists in the free world, so cant agree totally with you it is over used or non applicable. The difference between Free speech and "free speech" is the context / use of terminology words in it! TOTALLY AGREE its an either this or that scenario... If he said it without the need to actually determine what was ill advised about it then that show the true mentality of the man! and the subconscious background he lives in! If he deliberated on looking for a hurtful and nasty terminology to bring attention and controvery to the post then it shows he was deliberately trying to cause offence?
Back to the Lineker thing; am I seeing this too simply? If there is a clause in his contract stating he mustn’t post political opinions on social media - which he has done - then he has broken his contract and should be disciplined/fired (whatever) for breach of contract. If on the other hand there isn’t any clause related to social media posts then he has done nothing wrong whatsoever. It’s as binary as that in my book. But I do see things rather simply…..
not joining this argument as THERE IS SO MUCH CONTRADICTION AND MIS UNDERSTANDING.... However the setting up of the BBC and how and why is best investigated before you assume or comment. Basically to raise money ,gov's have resorted varying different methods of tax collection road tax dog licence radio licence etc etc To not have a .gov run TV / news the radio and tv FREQUENCIES were allotted and under strict rules and guidance were licenced by a corporation that would be unbiased and fair ... the BBC . To fund this with restrictions ON SPEND, [if was a .gov thing could get out of hand and be accused of bias, ] it was as a licenced operator with the aforesaid rules. Commercial stations much later wished to join the fray but they were told fund it yourself no share of licence money and the .gov allotted parts of the radio frequency spectrum were sliced up .. for a one off fee ... as a primary or secondary user ... so to speak! Radio spectrum goes form 1hz to many many GHZ .............. TV decades ago was around 50mhz .............
Well done. See you can answer points and not be a deliberately evasive and selective. The BBC is a public service broadcaster. We pay for it by law. Hence the need for impartiality. The impartiality you do not think is necessary. Are you suggesting that because he is a sports presenter on the BBC he shouldn’t be allowed freedom of speech? This has already been answered. A BBC contractor/employee may not have absolute freedom to say whatever they want in public. Are you suggesting that the BBC can be impartial if those they employ make public statements that are not impartial? Gary Lineker's behaviour and his recent unpleasant impartial public statements can have an impact on the BBC. Its that simple.
I’m not 100% sure, but I don’t think it’s ring fenced, the license fee I believe goes into a “ big pot” of tax, along with many other taxes, then is dished out to the BBC, the amount it receives is decided by the government. So its state funded you could argue, the BBC has to work within guidelines set out by the government, the government also appoints the head of the BBC. But the BBC is independent, However it must remain impartial and fair. it isn’t state run, they are free to criticise the government if they so wish, I’m no expert, but news , programs and documentaries most give balance, they have to present both sides of an argument. I’m sure JGF can fill you in on how this is achieved.
As I explained the organisation has to be impartial, that doesn’t mean individuals within the organisations aren’t able to have their own views and express them freely in their own time, that’s more problematic for employees working in the news department., You say it’s been answered A BBC employee /contractor may not have absolute freedom to say whatever they want in public. You are wrong they have the same right as the rest of us, within reason, reasons set down by law, not the BBC, not allowed to incite violence etc. Obviously the BBC agree with me because they’ve reinstated him, and apologised. Have you seen his latest efforts, he’s not exactly holding back. Yes, the BBC can be completely impartial by allowing employees to be able to have a mind of their own, and be able to express their views freely in their own time. There is a much wider issue here than whether GL ‘s statements have had an impact on the BBC. again the BBC obviously don’t agree with you as they’ve apologised, they’ve reinstated him and he’s still expressing his opinions on social media I would suggest it’s the way that it’s been handled by the BBC that has had the most detrimental affect on the BBC, I wonder how long it will be before someone’s head rolls, and it won’t be GL’s. BTW I ignored the patronising start and end to your post. I’m better than that .
The licence fee is THE BBC budget, [ not a tax to the .gov ]thats why there was a big hike in annual fee AND pensioners no longer get it .. IMO pensioners no longer get it as they have family in same house, so family dont pay [ or didnt ] plus the 4+ million x fee for pensioners could pay for 1 or 2 of its presenters!
I thnk you misunderstood the post because thats not answer to any of it. what does people like me mean? i can say anything i want as long as its legal. my mrs works for the mod can't. she would be in all kinds with work if she was chucking about what Lineker did. We the tax payer pay our taxes unlike Lineker who dodges tax every year . we the tax payer also pay that licence fee to pay Linkers biggest wedge at the bbc to dodge paying tax every year. Your now saying the BBC has to be impartial but you dont say how. your saying freedom of speech applies to everyone in posts and here your saying it applies to some?? you keep avoiding just how big Lineker is we pay the bbc to pay Linker the biggest juiciest pie at the BBC. nobody else gets whats Linekers gets. hes one of the biggest faces at the BBC, he is connected to the BBC massivelyn, instantly associated with BBC, he is Mr BBC match of the day, he is front news, he gains massively from being on the impartial BBC, this is no teeny weeny profile, paid for by us and he aint impartial. your points are all over the gaff. in a rare moment i had a look at BBC guidelines. "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." There is also this one people who are "clearly identified with the BBC" should behave "in ways that are consistent with the BBC's editorial values and policies. Hes been taking the piss.
My posts aren’t “all over the gaff” as you put it. They are extremely consistent, so much so I get a bit bored typing the same thing again and again. I try to vary the way I put it rather than just copying and pasting. Here we go again I’ll say it one more time and that’s it. He has every right to say what he wants , as does everyone one,(within the law). The BBC as an organisation has to be impartial, that doesn’t mean individuals within it aren’t able to have their own views. Sports presenters aren’t under the same obligation as news journalists/presenters. The clause you quote from the BBC in relation to their profile etc is a grey area. There are other examples of well known people that have made party political statements, including GL in the past and nothing has been done about it. Plus they have apologised and reinstated him. We don’t decide GL salary the BBC does. Whether he deserves his salary is a whole different debate. I assume he’s paid the market rate, I’ve seen many comments that he could earn more if he took his services to another employer. I don’t know why you keep raising tax, it’s a completely separate issue, I’ve already stated if he’s found guilty of tax avoidance I’ll be the first to criticise him, I don’t know enough about his circumstances to comment your entitled to your opinion, I don’t happen to agree with you.
It would be disingenuous not to point out the guidelines on social media contains - Actors, dramatists, comedians, musicians and pundits who work for the BBC are not subject to the requirements of impartiality on social media. Guidance: Individual Use of Social Media - Editorial Guidelines (bbc.co.uk) Gary Lineker is not unintelligent. It does not take a high level of intelligence to understand the commitment to impartiality should to apply to Gary Lineker. This is not ambiguous. Gary Lineker's profile (very high) demands that additional responsibility to be impartial.
Because the French don’t want to look after them, as it costs a huge amount of money, and takes up a huge amount of resources too just as we’ve found. The Italians also now have a right leaning Government which has largely stopped illegals stopping in Italy after crossing the Mediterranean The Germans under Merkel took loads but on a New Years Eve a few years ago there were multiple rapes and attempted rapes and assaults in Munich. What the situation in Germany now I don’t know, but Sweden have banned virtually all immigration under their latest Government following years of major issues with immigrants such as, Malmo becoming the rape capital of Europe and armed gang warfare breaking out regularly in cities such as Gothenburg
