Home
What do you think about all of the kefuffle?
It all seems easy to me.
Anyone working in a public institution - ie they serve all the general public irrespective of race, colour, creed, political persuasion or anything else that may seem to be potentially discriminatory - should keep their own views on such as private.
This simply shows that public services are there to provide a service to all without any perceived bias or favouritism to any person, group or organisation.
In other words the public service is seen to be impartial equal and accessible to all.
Therefore, Lineker (who argues that he technically he is working freelance) is being paid by the BBC should act in such a way that his private views should not conflict with those of his employer (as a freelance he is a contractor and the BBC is his client).
He is free to air his views on anything as long as it does not impinge on the standing of the organisation he is working for.
The BBC is political neutral organisation (or at least it very much attempts to be).
If this is to onerous for Lineker, then he should terminate his contract and be free then to say whatever he likes.
I'm all for free speech and freedom of the press but not everything can be said or reported without there being some consequences or harm to others. For instance you can't say racist things and then claim it to be ok because it's free speech can you?
There has to be some sort of balance and for me, Lineker should not be both a very high profile, public service contractor and at the same time state his political views publicly to his nine million twitter followers.
He can do one thing or the other but not both at the same time.
There seems these days an 'entitlement' by many to do what they want, without consequences - how many people didn't wear masks, social distance and not abuse lockdowns recently for instance?
I'm sure Lineker thinks he's in the right to say what he wants AND work at a public service organisation, which the BBC is but his actions are 'politicising' an organisation whose raison d'etre is to be nonpolitical and serving all equally and without prejudice.
What do others think?
It all seems easy to me.
Anyone working in a public institution - ie they serve all the general public irrespective of race, colour, creed, political persuasion or anything else that may seem to be potentially discriminatory - should keep their own views on such as private.
This simply shows that public services are there to provide a service to all without any perceived bias or favouritism to any person, group or organisation.
In other words the public service is seen to be impartial equal and accessible to all.
Therefore, Lineker (who argues that he technically he is working freelance) is being paid by the BBC should act in such a way that his private views should not conflict with those of his employer (as a freelance he is a contractor and the BBC is his client).
He is free to air his views on anything as long as it does not impinge on the standing of the organisation he is working for.
The BBC is political neutral organisation (or at least it very much attempts to be).
If this is to onerous for Lineker, then he should terminate his contract and be free then to say whatever he likes.
I'm all for free speech and freedom of the press but not everything can be said or reported without there being some consequences or harm to others. For instance you can't say racist things and then claim it to be ok because it's free speech can you?
There has to be some sort of balance and for me, Lineker should not be both a very high profile, public service contractor and at the same time state his political views publicly to his nine million twitter followers.
He can do one thing or the other but not both at the same time.
There seems these days an 'entitlement' by many to do what they want, without consequences - how many people didn't wear masks, social distance and not abuse lockdowns recently for instance?
I'm sure Lineker thinks he's in the right to say what he wants AND work at a public service organisation, which the BBC is but his actions are 'politicising' an organisation whose raison d'etre is to be nonpolitical and serving all equally and without prejudice.
What do others think?
