Boycott MOTD

[Andy_Faber]

Im sure thats the angle they will argue, my guess is had sugar published a picture of bojo next to hitler the outcome might have been different.

Of course ITV are a different broadcaster and not funded by the public purse so it is obviously different but what Gary Neville did using the football coverage itself as a platform to have a political rant was worse than what lineker did.

yes agreed it was, but as Neville is only a 'bit part' actor anyway it was never going to cause the stir Linekergate has

[Andy_Faber]

You’ll not be surprised to hear I don’t understand that. For me we are first and foremost a football forum, but there’s a limit to how much half a dozen or so regulars can say regarding each Derby match. If people are inclined to extend their comments to topical issues...Brexit, Covid, Refugees, Music, political dishonesty etc then, providing it doesn’t degenerate into personal insults, surely that’s a good thing isn’t it?

Not saying I intend to do it here rA, we've had that discussion (many times) and we 'walk the line' of personal insults, we (some of us and I'll include myself) sometimes get a bit personal but we are in truce mode at the moment and this thread proves we can have a reasonable debate. Some (I've counted 5) fb forums have closed down discussion on Linekergate simply because the threads 'got political' and to be honest bring out the worst in people (me v Swale or you v TTR are mere pillowfights compared to some of the bile I've seen). Two of the forums regularly close down threads about Rangers and/or Celtic for that reason too

[Geoff Parkstone]

I imagine that in a larger fb forum there would be a tendency to debate what GL said, rather than the personal consequences of his saying it. Thankfully it has not descended to that here, so things remain civil.

[ramAnag]

I’ll take your word for it, AF...no time to go on other forums. For the record I much prefer the civility that currently exist between most of us at the moment. Swale appears to have been as good as gold of late. GP is almost back to what he used to be, you and I are behaving, which only really leaves Tricky...but there you go.
Sith posted a potentially contentious, but relevant and interesting thread. Even you’ve granted it ‘sticky’ status and most of the discussion has been grown up and sensible. Happy days!

[SithHappens]

it would seem as punishment lineker is being made to go and watch Leicester City today, what is the world coming to..

[Geoff Parkstone]

So given all the presenters pulling out of BBC coverage of football, isn't it time to bring back Sir Geoffrey to present a new football show "Boycott MOTD"?

[Trickytreesreds]

These two sum it up brilliantly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCTdpWD3mQA

[SithHappens]

Its true, how can they rule on impartiality when they are not impartial at the very top.

[swaledale]

Here you go RA, first thing I searched-

Education

The consequences

Putting losing your job to one side, there can be even more serious consequences to indiscreet or inappropriate social media usage.

The professional disciplinary bodies that regulate teachers, such as the Teaching Regulation Agency in England, are known to take forward cases in respect of teachers perceived to have misused social media. This can result in protracted legal proceedings before the regulator, during which time the teacher may find it difficult to maintain or secure employment, and it could result in a prohibition from teaching.

Usefully, the Welsh teaching regulator, the Education Workforce Council, has produced good practice guidance setting out its expectations regarding the use of social media (EWC, 2016).

Furthermore, a teacher whose use of social media is alleged to amount to a safeguarding breach may face referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service, where that breach meets the threshold. If the DBS concludes the concerns are well-founded, this could result in the teacher being added to the Barred Lists, which would prevent them from working with children and/or vulnerable adults.

Clearly the worst-case scenario would be where a teacher’s behaviour on social media towards a pupil is considered to potentially amount to a criminal offence, such as grooming or evidence that there may have been an abuse of their position of trust. Even if not proven, this could result in damaging information being included in a teacher’s enhanced disclosure certificate.

Fair enough If ones contract is specific, though there's a difference between a personal opinion and something overtly political. offensive etc.

However, Lineker ia free lance, employed as a sports presenter, he is not on MOTD talking about anything other than football and the impartiality rule applies to directly employed staff who work in or on behalf of BBC News.

The BBC initially said there wasn't an issue, then suspended him later - clear pressure from Tory ministers and MP's here by a BBC running scared of this right wing government - of course the fact that 3 of the senior people at the BBC have clear political affiliations with the Tory party - including, being members councillors, standing for MP, arranging loans, donors etc is a much greater issue about imaprtiality.

Then one could and indeed it has been raised that other free lance and directly employed people, such as Keunssberg, Fiona Bruce (husband's PR firm employed by Tory party and who defended Johnson's father's domestic abuse on a programme,) Andrew Neil, who when presenting a politics show made a number of derogatory comments about Labour, Alan Sugar the same, Karen Brady a Tory peer, all seem not to be bothered by this so called ruling.

So IMO the BBC have made a grave error of judgement here and are going to find it hard to row back, Lineker clearly isn't going to apologise or agree to any restrictions and why should he?


Whats nice to see is that it isn't only me who feels that the way this government is behaving is rather similar to 1930's Germany!

[Andy_Faber]

Fair enough If ones contract is specific, though there's a difference between a personal opinion and something overtly political. offensive etc.

However, Lineker ia free lance, employed as a sports presenter, he is not on MOTD talking about anything other than football and the impartiality rule applies to directly employed staff who work in or on behalf of BBC News.

The BBC initially said there wasn't an issue, then suspended him later - clear pressure from Tory ministers and MP's here by a BBC running scared of this right wing government - of course the fact that 3 of the senior people at the BBC have clear political affiliations with the Tory party - including, being members councillors, standing for MP, arranging loans, donors etc is a much greater issue about imaprtiality.

Then one could and indeed it has been raised that other free lance and directly employed people, such as Keunssberg, Fiona Bruce (husband's PR firm employed by Tory party and who defended Johnson's father's domestic abuse on a programme,) Andrew Neil, who when presenting a politics show made a number of derogatory comments about Labour, Alan Sugar the same, Karen Brady a Tory peer, all seem not to be bothered by this so called ruling.

So IMO the BBC have made a grave error of judgement here and are going to find it hard to row back, Lineker clearly isn't going to apologise or agree to any restrictions and why should he?


Whats nice to see is that it isn't only me who feels that the way this government is behaving is rather similar to 1930's Germany!

So that’s two people out of 60million, well done