Day Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 Without turning this into another left v right borefest, Gary Lineker is stepping back from his presenting duties on MOTD following the Nazi tweet. I'm not entirely sure why there is so much controversy, comes down to this for me, if it's within his contract to abide by impartiality rules and refrain from taking sides on politic issues, that is a breach of contract, sack him. If there is nothing in the contract preventing him, let the bloke crack on. Many people face certain rules when it comes to social media, I know of two women that work within child services for North East Lincolnshire Council, they are not allowed to have profiles with their full names so have opted for first and middle names only. It's in the employment terms they agreed to. Bob The Badger and 1967Ram 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram-Alf Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 One small step for man, One giant leap backwards for Lineker David Graham Brown 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted March 10, 2023 Author Share Posted March 10, 2023 Gary Lineker is stepping back from his duties as Match of the Day presenter, the BBC has said in a statement. But, Sky News understands that Lineker has not agreed to this, and the statement is incorrect. A source close to Mr Lineker has told Sky News the corporation has taken him off air, as he is unwilling to apologise for his comments this week on social media and admit he should not have done it. https://news.sky.com/story/gary-lineker-stepping-back-from-role-as-match-of-the-day-presenter-12830108 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaaLocks Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 (edited) The very interesting point for me in this is that Gary Lineker is not employed by the BBC so you are bang on the money, unless it explicitly says in his contract that he is not allowed to express views on his personal account on certain topics I don't really know what they are trying to achieve. At the moment, with the release of this statement, the optics look really, really bad for the BBC. Couple it with the announcement earlier in the day not to air an episode of the new David Attenborough documentary for fear it will cause a right wing backlash and the optics are seriously out of kilter. Add to that the fact the chairman of the BBC made (to quote the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee) "serious errors of judgment" facilitating an £800k loan to a certain Boris Johnson and you have to conclude this is a question of national interest how our state broadcaster is acting in repeatadly flawed ways. Edited March 10, 2023 by BaaLocks Ramarena, DarkFruitsRam7, Day and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 Is this what they mean by cancel culture? ? They'll have to get Gary Neville in now I suppose... ? Archied, Stive Pesley and David Graham Brown 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted March 10, 2023 Author Share Posted March 10, 2023 SaffyRam, Eddie, Miggins and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram-Alf Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 10 minutes ago, David said: David Graham Brown 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 5 minutes ago, David said: Gwan Wrighty lad ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 34 minutes ago, David said: Without turning this into another left v right borefest, Gary Lineker is stepping back from his presenting duties on MOTD following the Nazi tweet. I'm not entirely sure why there is so much controversy, comes down to this for me, if it's within his contract to abide by impartiality rules and refrain from taking sides on politic issues, that is a breach of contract, sack him. If there is nothing in the contract preventing him, let the bloke crack on. Many people face certain rules when it comes to social media, I know of two women that work within child services for North East Lincolnshire Council, they are not allowed to have profiles with their full names so have opted for first and middle names only. It's in the employment terms they agreed to. I posted this at the same time in the Football Forum as it was football related. So probably best to delete that thread now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archram Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 Someone should tell the BBC football commentators they’re supposed to be impartial! Ewe Ram, Whippetram and David Graham Brown 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkleyram Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 (edited) Excellent news. Perhaps we can now have a football programme that just shows football without all the pointless nonsense in between of a bunch of ex players saying nothing of interest or import, whilst robbing licence fee payers of 100s of thousands a year in wages. Edited March 10, 2023 by ilkleyram G STAR RAM, Ram-Alf, Dean (hick) Saunders and 14 others 5 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Brolly Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 Wrighty's come out in sympathy,might start watching it again GB SPORTS and David Graham Brown 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 He's paid to talk about football. I don't see why anything he says outside of MOTD should matter when it comes to presenting a football highlights show. It was the same with the awful treatment Le Tissier got from Sky. It baffles me that companies now seem to believe they can and should dictate what their employees say and think away from work. 1967Ram, uttoxram75 and Mostyn6 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 Made my month. Can't stand the guy. If he never came back on TV that would be the perfect outcome. Then he can post whatever he wants on Twitter and I can just block his account. strawhillram, GB SPORTS, Whippetram and 6 others 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 Alex Scott it is then ? Alph 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 26 minutes ago, archram said: Someone should tell the BBC football commentators they’re supposed to be impartial! The Govt appointed someone to the BBC to do just that. Reggie Greenwood 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted March 10, 2023 Author Share Posted March 10, 2023 29 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said: I posted this at the same time in the Football Forum as it was football related. So probably best to delete that thread now It is, but I know this forum, give it 2 pages and we'll have Brexit, drag queens then tomatoes Tyler Durden, ariotofmyown, Steve How Hard? and 5 others 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 23 minutes ago, Anon said: He's paid to talk about football. I don't see why anything he says outside of MOTD should matter when it comes to presenting a football highlights show. It was the same with the awful treatment Le Tissier got from Sky. It baffles me that companies now seem to believe they can and should dictate what their employees say and think away from work. I agree - although there is a slight, but important, difference in that Sky is a commercial enterprise so whilst the behaviour of an employee outside of their duties is not really any of their business - if they are losing viewers and/or advertising revenue as a result then they could argue that their employees behaviour is impacting their business model. Even so - it's still one for employment law to handle rather than us plebs Difference with Lineker is that the BBC is publicly funded and therefore even if he loses them viewers, that doesn't really matter in any way shape or form Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted March 10, 2023 Author Share Posted March 10, 2023 7 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said: I agree - although there is a slight, but important, difference in that Sky is a commercial enterprise so whilst the behaviour of an employee outside of their duties is not really any of their business - if they are losing viewers and/or advertising revenue as a result then they could argue that their employees behaviour is impacting their business model. Even so - it's still one for employment law to handle rather than us plebs Difference with Lineker is that the BBC is publicly funded and therefore even if he loses them viewers, that doesn't really matter in any way shape or form Not that important. If anyone was to stop watching a football programme over one man's political views, wouldn't be a huge lost. Let's be honest, it would take a mass exodus to have any serious impact. It's all on par with the kids today that scream "you've lost my respect" soon as someone does or says something they don't like. The sooner companies stop pandering to the cancel culture on both sides the better. Ram-Alf, Kathcairns and 1967Ram 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 32 minutes ago, Anon said: He's paid to talk about football. I don't see why anything he says outside of MOTD should matter when it comes to presenting a football highlights show. It was the same with the awful treatment Le Tissier got from Sky. It baffles me that companies now seem to believe they can and should dictate what their employees say and think away from work. No offence but that's a weird thing to say as companies do have a right to understand what their employees are saying on social media if those comments can be linked back to the employer and would put the same employer in a bad light. There are many, many, employment cases where employees have been found to be fairly dismissed for doing exactly that. Personally I know of a guy whom I worked with whom was dismissed for making perceived racist comments on Facebook but they could be linked back to their employer as the person posted their employer name on their Facebook page. This was then passed onto their employer by a disgruntled Facebook member, disciplinary convened m summarily dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account.
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now